Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICES

Television Films

Mr. John Hall: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many countries receive British films for television transmission; and if the quantity of British films now available allows for more than one hour's showing weekly by those television stations.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Dr. Charles Hill): The official Information Services supply television material regularly to 44 countries and occasionally to nine more. The amount supplied varies according to the territory. But the average allows for transmission of a little more than an hour a week. This is in addition to overseas sales by the B.B.C. and I.T.V.

Mr. Hall: Is there a demand for this material which we are not now meeting, and, if so, is there any means by which we can increase the supply?

Dr. Hill: There is a considerable demand which, in general, we are meeting, but the demand is rising and we are increasing the resources which are available for it.

Television Stations

Mr. John Hall: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps are being taken to encourage the establishment of television stations in

British territories; and what technical or financial assistance has been given to such countries to help them establish a television service.

Dr. Hill: In Colonial Territories—and I assume this is what my hon. Friend means by British territories—my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary advises on television development generally, and my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General on frequencies and similar matters. The B.B.C. gives valuable help including technical advice.
Grants for surveys and advice on television development have been made from C.D. & W. funds, which in addition have largely helped the development of sound broadcasting in Colonial Territories. Financial aid towards the capital or recurrent expenses of a television service would have to take its place in the scheme of things with other forms of aid.

Mr. Hall: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that television is an outstandingly successful means of distributing information and strengthening educational facilities in areas where the communication of ideas is difficult? Would he not, therefore, consider that more money should be spent or more resources made available to, strengthen these services? Does he think that if more money were made available to him he could use it profitably in this way?

Dr. Hill: Important though television is, there are, of course, great tracts of the world in which sound broadcasting is the most appropriate medium. I do, of course, agree in general that we must seek to secure the showing of British material overseas, but, as my hon. Friend will recall, I dealt with that point in my former Answer.

Mr. Mayhew: Do not the remarks of the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) bear out what I have asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do—to press ahead with subsidising the B.B.C.'s television transcription service and also to enable the C.O.I. to run its own film unit to provide specially geared television material to overseas countries?

Dr. Hill: I assume that when the hon. Gentleman speaks of the transcription


service he is referring to television material. I would refer him to what I said before, that money is available for the purchase of suitable material both from the B.B.C. and from independent television companies.

Official Visitors (Interpreters and Guides)

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster by what method interpreters and guides are recruited for accompanying official visitors to this country.

Dr. Hill: Escorting officers are recruited after interview from applicants on the appropriate Ministry of Labour register, or responding to public advertisement. In general, interpretation is supplied by Departmental officers.

Mr. Mayhew: Would the Chancellor agree that often the strongest impression left upon the mind of an official visitor to this country is the personality of his interpreter or guide? Has not the time come to raise the status of these important people and to take a little more care than indicated by his Answer in their selection and training?

Dr. Hill: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's main point. I have seen a good deal of these escorting and interpreting officers, and I confess that I have been impressed with their quality and efficiency, but I will consider the second general point the hon. Member raises.

Information Officers

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what specialised training courses are undergone by information officers before their first appointment overseas.

Dr. Hill: Training courses for information officers have been organised by Departments concerned and by the Central Office of Information at intervals during the past two years. Arrangements have recently been made for revised courses, improved in the light of experience, to begin in January. These will be more frequent and will contain a higher proportion of pratcical instruction in newspaper offices, agencies and so on.

Mr. Mayhew: Quite apart from the practical instruction, is sufficient done in the ideological sphere? For example, are these information officers specially trained in the differences between the Soviet, Egyptian and Chinese anti-colonial propaganda? Will they be trained in this, and, if so, where and for how long?

Dr. Hill: In general, I believe that to be the case, but I will send the hon. Member the proposed course which is to start on 1st January. I will be glad to receive any observations which he may have about it.

British Way of Life (Publications)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what pamphlets relating to the British way of life will be published by the Central Office of Information during the next month.

Dr. Hill: As the answer includes a list of 24 publications, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Lipton: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, would not it be useful to have a pamphlet setting out the extent to which housing is no longer a national problem, in view of the many official statements to that effect without supporting evidence? Or does the C.O.I. not publish works of fiction?

Dr. Hill: I suspected, rightly it seems, that the hon. Member was not in search of information but of a little personal publicity.

Following is the list:
Publications relating to the British way of life and prepared for the Foreign Office, Commonwealth Relations Office or Colonial Office by the Central Office of Information which are due to be despatched to overseas posts, or will be reaching them during the next month are as follows:

Illustrated Publications

Picture of Britain (1960 edition).
Queen and People (French language edition).
Farming in Britain (French language edition).
Rates and Taxes (How Britons are taxed—how the money is spent).
Trade Unions in Britain.
Calendar of Britain 1961.

Reference Pamphlets and Papers

Housing in Britain.
Agriculture in Britain.


Education in Britain.
The Central Government of Britain.
Labour Relations and Conditions of Work in the United Kingdom.
United Kingdom Financial Institutions.
Fifty Facts about Britain's Economy.
Britain in Brief.
Sound and Television Broadcasting in the U.K.
Nationalised Industries in Britain.
A Short Guide to U.K. Taxes.
British Civil Aviation.
Inland Transport in the U.K.
United Kingdom External Trade and Payments.
Manufacturing Industries in the U.K.
The Promotion of the Arts in Britain.

The first eight in the above list of reference pamphlets and papers are or will be on sale in the United Kingdom through H.M. Stationery Office; others are available on sale from the Central Office of Information's Reference Division.

Magazines.
Number 79 of the magazine "Commonwealth Today", containing a number of articles about life in Britain will arrive at overseas posts during the period in question. "Commonwealth Today" is issued in twelve languages.
Number 2 of the magazine "Good Business"—a review of British industrial and commercial techniques for South-East Asia—will also be reaching posts during the same period.

Newspapers

Mrs. White: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which British daily newspapers are distributed overseas at Government expense.

Dr. Hill: With permission, I will circulate the list of 25 titles in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the list:

Daily Express.
Daily Herald.
Daily Mail.
Daily Mirror.
Daily Sketch.
Daily Telegraph.
Daily Worker.
Evening News.
Evening Standard.
Financial Times.
Guardian.
Journal of Commerce.
New Daily.
The Times.
Aberdeen Press.
Belfast Telegraph.
Birmingham Post.
Dundee Courier.
Glasgow Herald.
Liverpool Post.
Northern Whig (Belfast).
Scotsman.
Western Daily Press.
Western Mail.
Yorkshire Post.

Polaris Submarine Base, Scotland

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to co-ordinate information about a Polaris base in Scotland, and to ensure that this information is widely distributed throughout the United States of America.

Dr. Hill: The facts and arguments about the facilities for the Polaris submarines have been stated in Parliament and accordingly reported in the output of the official overseas information services distributed in America and elsewhere.

Mr. Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the opposition to Polaris is much more clamant outside Parliament than inside? Will he take steps to see to it that American citizens are adequately informed about the opposition of such bodies as the Scottish Trades Union Congress and of the protest of such eminent Church of Scotland dignitaries as the Very Rev. Sir George MacCleod and the Minister of St. Giles' Cathedral?

Dr. Hill: There are many observers in this country who can faithfully report the picture, as they see it, across the water—and they do.

Mr. Shinwell: Why should not the right hon. Gentleman convey to the United States, through official information resources, what has happened in Scotland recently, such as the huge demonstrations and the protest made not only by trade unionists and Labour people but by churches? Why should not the American public be informed of these issues?

Dr. Hill: But these things are faithfully and fully recorded in the American Press.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL

Price

Mr. Watts: asked the Minister of Power whether he will give a general direction to the National Coal Board to refrain from further increases in the price of coal, while surplus stocks exist.

The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Wood): No, Sir. The Board's prices must continue to depend on its financial position.

Mr. Lee: Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider the case of the British Motor Corporation, which is similarly placed? The corporation has huge stocks and yet its prices are going up.

Mr. Wood: No, Sir. The British Motor Corporation is not a responsibility of mine.

Mr. Watts: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in general, when a trading concern has surplus stocks, lower and not increased prices will sell them? Would he not also agree that the recent increase in the price of coal, made when Parliament was in recess, has not only caused hardship but has priced coal out of the market in favour of fuel oil?

Mr. Wood: If the National Coal Board had reduced the price of coal in stock, it would have had the effect that any extra coal bought from its stocks would have been replaced from current production. The effect on the stock position would not, therefore, have been very great.

Supplies

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Power what action has been taken to ensure that a satisfactory flow of household coal is maintained to south-east London and north-west Kent during the winter months, in view of the unsatisfactory situation experienced last winter when coal which left Midland collieries early in December was not received by the merchants until February.

Mr. Owen: asked the Minister of Power (1) what discussions he has had with the British Transport Commission concerning the conveyance of adequate supplies of domestic coal; and whether he will make a statement;
(2) what steps are being taken to ensure that adequate supplies of coal are distributed to meet the needs of consumers; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Wood: The British Transport Commission and the National Coal Board are making special arrangements, and diverting some traffic to the roads, in order to deal with the winter coal

demand. The two industries are in constant touch, and I understand that British Railways are now moving about 200,000 tons of coal a week more than last year.

Mr. Dodds: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that it is enough, bearing in mind that coal left the Midlands on 4th December last year but did not get into south-east London until the first week of February? Does he appreciate that we must have a much better performance this year, because the Parliamentary Secretary said on Thursday that coal stocks were lower because of the high buying during the summer? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that everything is being done?

Mr. Wood: I am aware of the difficulties of last year to which the hon. Member has drawn attention, but British Railways are moving a great deal more coal this year. Deliveries to the Metropolis in October last made possible a very large increase in the amount of coal delivered to consumers, and at the same time allowed coal merchants to add to their stocks. Lastly, arrangements have been reached between the British Transport Commission and the National Coal Board to enable quite a lot of coal to be moved by road to the power stations, thus freeing facilities for the movement of other coal.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that coal merchants in the Metropolis are very short of supplies, particularly of certain grades of fuel for smokeless zones? In the event of a cold snap, a number of households will be completely out of supplies. Will he consider an emergency plan for the transport of coal in special circumstances?

Mr. Wood: The British Transport Commission and the National Coal Board are holding weekly meetings to review the position. There is consultation not only at headquarters but also at divisional level. All these consultations are being held to meet the kind of difficulties which the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Mr. John Hall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am already receiving complaints from constituents about the difficulty of getting coal supplies and that they find it difficult to understand


this in view of the National Coal Board's experiences in getting rid of its stocks? Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the arrangements to which he has referred are working?

Mr. Wood: The position is as I have stated it. If merchants in my hon. Friend's constituency are having difficulty, he will no doubt take the opportunity of putting them in touch with the National Coal Board.

Mr. Dugdale: If there should be a shortage of smokeless fuel, what arrangements will be made to see that people in smokeless zones will be able to use other fuels?

Mr. Wood: A smokeless zone is not approved unless it is clear that there is an adequate stock of smokeless fuel to enable it to exist. I hope, therefore, that the position which the right hon. Gentleman suggests will not arise.

Mr. P. Browne: asked the Minister of Power if he will give a general direction to the National Coal Board to ensure an adequate supply of domestic house coal of the right size and quality during the coming winter.

Mr. Wood: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards) on 17th November.

Mr. Browne: I have not that answer here. Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is not merely a question of transport? One of the reasons for the shortage of large house coal is the fact that it is not being mined. Does not he think it rather ridiculous that we as a nation are contracting this industry because it is producing too much of an unwanted commodity and not enough of a commodity which is required?

Mr. Wood: My hon. Friend is aware of some of the difficulties. The National Coal Board is taking steps to increase the percentage of large coal produced at present. But I do not think I should leave the House in doubt that the house coal position, because of the increase in mechanisation, will be more difficult this year than in previous years.

Mr. Lee: I fully follow what the right hon. Gentleman said about greater mechanisation resulting in more small coal, but when I was in Coventry the

other night I found people furious because a pit in the area which had a good record and was not mechanised and was producing plenty of large household coal was being threatened with closure. Will the right hon. Gentleman look into that?

Mr. Wood: I will draw the attention of the National Coal Board to the hon. Member's remarks.

Mr. Sydney Irving: asked the Minister of Power what steps he is taking to ensure adequate supplies of boiler fuel for domestic purposes during the winter.

Mr. Wood: Total stocks of boiler fuel for domestic purposes are at about the same level as this time last year. Although there may be shortages of some types, such as anthracite, from time to time in particular places, there are abundant supplies of coke, which is the most important boiler fuel, and I do not think any special steps are called for.

Mr. Irving: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that much of this coke is of an inferior quality and not acceptable to householders? Will he, therefore, take steps to improve not only quantity but quality?

Mr. Wood: It is not for me to improve quality. The Question asks about taking steps to ensure adequate supplies, but I do not know the type of coal to which the hon. Member is referring. If he will write to me, I will make inquiries on his behalf.

Mr. Lipton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some smokeless fuel is being sold at a rate of 22s. a cwt., which seems a little excessive?

Mr. Wood: I do not think that that is covered by the Question.

Domestic Coal Consumers' Council (Report)

Mr. Whitlock: asked the Minister of Power when he intends to act upon the recommendations of the Report of the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council, that in the interests of the consumer, coal be sold in accordance with the National Coal Board grouping and that coke be stored under cover to prevent its being sold with an excessive moisture content.

Mr. Wood: I have told the trade that the best way of dealing with these matters is for the trade itself to work out a scheme in co-operation with the producers, and I hope to receive proposals from them accordingly.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF POWER

National Coal Board and Gas Council (Plant)

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Power to what extent, expressed as a percentage, the National Coal Board and the Gas Council, respectively, are able to meet the annual cost of replacement of plant out of their own resources.

Mr. Wood: Between vesting date and 1959, the National Coal Board provided from internal resources about 45 per cent. and the gas boards, taken together, about 37 per cent. of their expenditure on fixed assets. Over the period 1959 to 1965, both industries expect the ratio to average about 70 per cent.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: If this refers to replacement of plant, the figures prior to the immediate present were a matter of some concern. Can my right hon. Friend indicate whether the financial position of the Board and the Council is improving as regards replacement of plant?

Mr. Wood: The ratio in the answer is expressed by reference to total fixed investment, but, for reasons which my hon. Friend knows, it is difficult to distinguish between replacement and new investments in these industries. I ask him to remember that both these industries have carried out programmes of major reconstruction which have made it extremely difficult for them in the past to achieve a higher rate of self-financing than the figures I have mentioned.

Oil (Bulk Storage)

Mr. Wainwright: asked the Minister of Power what has been the annual cost to the Government of the bulk storage of oil for the years 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, and the estimated cost for 1960.

Mr. Wood: In round figures, the cost to my Department was £3½ million in 1956–57; and £2½ million, £7½ million

and £7 million in the three succeeding years. The Estimate provision for 1960–61 is about £3 million.

Mr. Wainwright: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that members of the National Union of Mineworkers and the National Coal Board are greatly disturbed about discrimination between a nationalised industry and private enterprise? Does he not think that the Government should give a nationalised industry, which has a tremendous amount of stock at present, the same consideration in respect of the expenses of those stocks which private industry receives for the bulk storage of oil?

Mr. Wood: No, Sir. If the hon. Member is referring to discrimination in the sense of comparing the oil stocks and the coal stocks, then the two are in no way comparable, because the oil stocks are held as a strategic reserve and the coal stocks exist for entirely other purposes.

Gas Supplies, Forest of Dean

Mr. Loughlin: asked the Minister of Power what steps are being taken to ensure that there is no danger to gas consumers in the Forest of Dean whose supply was affected by a fractured gas main consequent upon a recent accident on the River Severn; how many people are still affected by this fracture; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. J. C. George): Over 6,000 consumers were suddenly deprived of gas by the accident on 25th October. The South Western Gas Board arranged for emergency supplies of bottled gas, and the loan of appliances to burn it, in schools and hospitals within 48 hours and in over 3,000 other premises within nine days. Special bridging arrangements and the purging of affected mains enabled town gas supplies to be restored on 8th November and extended without accident by 12th November to all consumers affected.
I think that the South Western Gas Board is to be congratulated on the speed with which it has acted to alleviate hardship, restore supplies and avert potential danger, following a quite unforeseeable emergency.

Mr. Loughlin: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we in the Forest of Dean are very conscious of the debt which we owe to the South West Gas Board for the way it dealt with this situation? Is he aware that the board dealt with it almost as a war-time emergency and did a wonderful job of work and all that possibly could be done in the circumstances? Will he convey to the officials of the board the appreciation of my constituents for the way they handled this situation?

Mr. George: I appreciate the hon. Member's remarks and I will see that they are conveyed to the board.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF AVIATION

London Airport

Sir A. V. Harvey: asked the Minister of Aviation what steps he is taking to expedite the traffic of incoming passengers at London Airport.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): A new passenger building for long distance traffic is being constructed. Plans are being prepared for an extension to the Domestic Section of the existing short-haul building and for alterations of the layout of the International Arrivals Section to speed the flow of passengers. In addition the transfer of some traffic from London to Gatwick is being discussed with the airlines.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Will my hon. Friend say when the intercontinental centre will be completed and when the improved facilities will be available for domestic traffic, since present facilities are now very overcrowded?

Mr. Rippon: The first part of the long haul building should be in use in the late summer of 1961 and the remainder early in 1962. I do not think that I can give any precise dates about modifications which are being made in the short-haul building.

Sir A. V. Harvey: asked the Minister of Aviation if he will state the reasons for the proposed increase in landing fees at London Airport.

The Minister of Aviation (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): Landing fees at all State-operated civil aerodromes in the United

Kingdom are to be increased by broadly one-third as a step towards making them self-supporting.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the consequences of this step will be that other countries will follow suit and air landing charges all over the world will increase? Will he seriously consider handing over the operation of London Airport to a body similar to the Port of London Authority so that it can try to break even?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Two questions are involved. One is who should run the aerodrome, which is a separate question which one could try to answer in a debate some other time. However, I am certain that airlines have to pay their own terminal charges. We cannot make them part of the Welfare State, and even if they are to be run by a Port of London Authority they must make both ends meet.

Sir J. Barlow: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it would much more satisfactory to run it on the lines of Manchester Airport at Ringway, which, I understand, is both efficient and economic?

Mr. Thorneycroft: There are various points of view about every airport, and I do not want to be drawn into commenting on every one, but I think that that is rather a different question.

Mr. Strauss: The right hon. Gentleman is new to this post, but will he agree that the Opposition have urged that the airport should be self-supporting? Does he not agree that there is no reason why the Government, directly or indirectly, should subsidise British or any other airlines?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am very happy to see this atmosphere of happy accord between us.

Mr. John Hall: Will my right hon. Friend tell me why the landing charges at London Airport are among the highest in the world?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not believe that they are. It depends on how the cash is collected. Many airports charge for petrol—they make a sort of special levy on petrol. If I were charging a


levy on the petrol sold at London Airport, I should do quite well. There are various ways of charging, and if all the methods are compared, I think that it will be found that the charges at London are not higher than those at major airports.

Air Traffic Control

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Aviation what advice he has received from the Air Traffic Control Advisory Committee on the need for a system of unified air traffic control in Europe or in Western Europe.

Mr. Thorneycroft: The Civil Aircraft Control Advisory Committee has not advised me specifically on the subject of air traffic control in Europe. I hope, however, to sign next month the Euro-control Convention setting up an international body for the control of upper air space.

Mr. Rankin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Guild of Air Pilots submitted a paper on this problem of unified air control to the Civil Aircraft Committee, of which the Guild is a member, on 19th September, 1959, and that that paper wandered through the Air Traffic Control Board to the Minister's office and last month was finally returned to the Air Traffic Control Advisory Committee, without anything having been done other than to adorn the paper with various comments? In view of the increasing congestion in the air, can the right hon. Gentleman not try to shorten some of those procedures?

Mr. Thorneycroft: This and the Air Traffic Control Board are valuable bodies, and I am in broad agreement about the advice which has been given. I think that there is full agreement that what is wanted is an integrated civil and military control system. This is a suitable system for the United Kingdom, so I think that we all agree, and I will do my best to further those ends.

Aircraft Industry (Assistance)

Mr. Strauss: asked the Minister of Aviation whether he will now state the nature and extent of the financial support given to the aircraft industry in respect of the DH121, the Argosy, the VC10, and the Super VC10.

Mr. Thorneycroft: The financial support is of the nature indicated by my predecessor on 15th February last. The detailed terms are under discussion with the firms concerned.

Mr. Strauss: Can the Minister say when we shall be able to have a picture of the details and the amount of Government support, the terms on which it is being given and whether there will be Government participation in any profit which may arise from this support? How long will it be before the contracts are settled?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The right hon. Gentleman served with great distinction at the Ministry of Supply. He knows the difficulties one is in in these matters. If I were to disclose all these details, it would make the whole business of putting these contracts out more complicated, and certainly more expensive, in future. I think we had better stick to the system we have always had, that we state support in round figures without going into details in particular contracts.

Mr. Strauss: When can we get some information about this? Is the Minister aware that on 11th July his predecessor told me that some of the information which I am seeking would be given to the House as soon as the contracts were signed? I am asking when these contracts are likely to be signed and when we shall get the information, or is he telling us that we cannot get the information at all?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I would not go as far as saying that the right hon. Gentleman will not get any information, but I think it would be wrong to give the details of these contracts. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman when he was Minister of Supply ever gave details of contracts of this character. We have the round figure, which is £9·4 million in the 1960–61 Estimates, for assistance for the development and proving of transport aircraft, and I might be able to give some indication of the type of assistance given, but certainly not the details.

Mr. Strauss: When?

Mr. Thorneycroft: As and when these various negotiations are concluded. I would not like to be tied to a specific date.

Air Travel (Forms)

Mr. Strauss: asked the Minister of Aviation what steps he proposes to take to reach agreement between his Department and the Airlines Operators' Committee over the procedure to be adopted in meeting his request for the filling in and collection of cards by arriving and departing long-distance passengers.

Mr. Thorneycroft: The scheme is still under consideration.

Mr. Strauss: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House some information about this? Are all long-distance passengers involved? Will they all, British or otherwise, have to fill up a questionnaire of ten or eleven questions when they arrive and when they leave the country? If so, is it really necessary? Will it not be an awful nuisance and not worth while?

Mr. Thorneycroft: At the moment, I feel that these considerations are in some sense hypothetical, because until the Order in Council is made there is no such scheme. Until I have to deal with that scheme, I am not really so bothered about the difficulties of putting it into operation.

Mr. Strauss: Has not the scheme been discussed with the Airline Operators Association on two occasions and no agreement reached? One understands why. What will happen? Will the Minister and the Government consider whether any such scheme is necessary at all?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The necessity for the scheme is not a matter for my Department. If it were introduced, some discussions would take place, but the broad view, as I understand it, is that the airlines do not like it.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Is it not a fact that the Board of Trade requested these forms to be brought in? Will my right hon. Friend, as the Minister of Aviation, resist it to the hilt and try to simplify travel as much as possible? Will he bear in mind that a few years ago when passengers had to fill in forms showing where they had spent the last fourteen nights they gave ridiculous answers?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I will certainly call the views of my hon. and gallant Friend to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Prestwick Airport

Mr. Ross: asked the Minister of Aviation if he will make a statement on the future development of Prestwick Airport.

Mr. Thorneycroft: The development is proceeding as planned. The extension of the main runway was completed in June in time for the big jets. The new control tower will be ready next summer. The contract for the first part of the new terminal apron and taxiway will be placed within a few weeks and a contract for the new airport terminal building will be placed next spring.

Mr. Ross: Does the Minister appreciate that this very costly development at Prestwick should be borne in mind when he is considering the proper use of this as an international airport? To develop the international airport as we are doing here and at the same time to deny the proper air linkage with centres of population within the country is really a bit ridiculous. Will he ask B.E.A. to get busy on the question of providing proper feeder services for Prestwick right away?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I have a feeling that we entered into this last week when answering questions on the subject, but meanwhile I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that these developments are necessary for the completion of this great international airport.

Mr. Gough: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the total inadequacy of passenger accommodation at Prestwick, particularly in regard to jet passengers coming from Canada destined for London who are cooped up in aircraft for half an hour because there is nowhere else in Prestwick for them?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Certainly the starting of a new terminal building will make a great contribution to that.

Mr. Rankin: Is the Minister aware that we are only entering into this business, we have not finished it? If it is important for strong reasons that we should concentrate on internal traffic at Renfrew, does he realise that it is as far from Prestwick to Renfrew as it is from Renfrew to Prestwick, and that we should try to consider those passengers travelling to London in the Ayrshire


section so that they may have feeder services to London along with international air transport passengers?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I will certainly bear all these considerations very fully in mind.

Aircraft Noise

Mr. Matthews: asked the Minister of Aviation what progress has been made by research into the problem of reducing aircraft noise: and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Thorneycroft: In addition to the development of suppressors for fitment to existing jet engines, means are being sought of reducing the noise at source by improvements in engine design. Research on this problem will continue, but I cannot promise that full solutions will quickly be found.

Mr. Matthews: Will my right hon. Friend see that instructions to aircraft operators and to flying clubs are strictly enforced to ensure that unnecessary noise is avoided and that flights over built-up areas are limited to the minimum, especially on Sundays?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right to place full attention and importance on the question of fulfilling the rules laid down for the operation of aircraft.

Birmingham Airport

Mr. Matthews: asked the Minister of Aviation whether it is intended to continue with the plans for extending the main runway at Birmingham Airport, in view of the recent development of jet-propelled vertical take-off aircraft.

Mr. Rippon: My right hon. Friend has so far received no proposals from the Birmingham Corporation, who own and operate the airport.

Mr. Matthews: Is my hon. Friend aware that residents in Marston Green and the neighbouring housing estates are strongly opposed to what they believe to be an extension of Birmingham Airport near to the built-up area and that the main runway is already dangerously near to the houses in Elmdon Lane? Is he also aware that plans for the extension of the airport may be obsolete in view of the development of vertical take-off aircraft?

Mr. Rippon: I was not aware of these matters, which were not referred to in the Question. As I indicated, this is really a matter in the first instance for the corporation which owns and operates the airport. As far as vertical take-off aircraft are concerned, I would not have thought that they had reached the stage of development where this was a relevant factor in considering the length of the runways.

B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. (Aircraft Replacement)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Aviation to what extent, expressed as a percentage, the British Overseas Airways Corporation and British European Airways, respectively, are able to meet the annual cost of replacement of aircraft out of their own resources.

Mr. Rippon: Over the four years 1958–59 to 1961–62 the B.O.A.C. expects to have met from its own resources 85 per cent. of the cost of replacing, as distinct from expanding, its fleet, and B.E.A. expects to have met 100 per cent.

Civil Aircraft Control Advisory Committee

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Aviation if he will state the functions and purpose of the Civil Aircraft Control Advisory Committee.

Mr. Thorneycroft: This Committee, on which all civil aviation interests are represented, was set up to consider major aircraft control problems and to give advice upon them to my Department.

Mr. Rankin: Is it not also the case that this Committee was asked to look at the major problems of air traffic control and to give advice to the Minister? Does it not appear, from the results, that it has looked at this problem for a very long time but has so far given no advice?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I think that that would be a wrong estimate of its work. It has done useful work, as has also the Air Traffic Control Board which has military as well as civil advisers on it, which I think is very important. I value


these bodies, and I think that they will be a help to me in solving what is a very big and difficult problem.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Leucotomy

Dr. D. Johnson: asked the Minister of Health when he expects to receive the report of the follow-up review being made by his Department on cases of leucotomy which was initiated by one of his predecessors in December, 1955.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Enoch Powell): This review has just been completed.

Dr. Johnson: I thank my right hon. Friend and his Department for successfully concluding what has apparently been a very long effort. I hope that the review will be as valuable as many of us expect.

Dr. Summerskill: Could not the Minister be a little more forthcoming, in view of the disastrous effect upon personality of this operation? We have waited for many years for the result. In those circumstances, could not he make a statement, which might be reported in the medical press, as to whether this operation is regarded favourably or not?

Mr. Powell: Not until I have been able to consider the results of the review.

Drugs

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that drug manufacturers include in their manufacturing expenses such promotion expenses as continental holidays offered as prizes to pharmacists; and to what extent he takes into account such expenses in approving the costs of new drugs prescribed within the National Health Service.

Mr. Powell: I am aware of one recent instance of this, but am told that the firm concerned does not intend to use this type of sales promotion in future. The costs of new drugs prescribed within the National Health Service are not subject to my approval.

Mr. Robinson: Does not the Minister agree that this type of advertising,

which was indulged in by AsproNicholas in trying to introduce a new antibiotic, can only reflect adversely on the pharmaceutical industry as a whole? Will he do everything in his power, by persuasion, to see that it does not happen again?

Mr. Powell: Yes.

Group Practice Loans

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Health why the average time for approving loans to group practices is four and a half months; and if he will take steps to shorten this period.

Mr. Powell: The committee needs this time to study the proposed arrangements and plans, to visit the groups and to get agreement to any modifications necessary.

Mr. Pavitt: I am aware of the very important work being done by this committee, and most general practitioners would agree upon the necessity for checking that a group practice is not merely a partnership, but will the Minister do what he can to bring down the maximum time to somewhere near the average of four and a half months?

Mr. Powell: Yes, but it has to be borne in mind that part of the time may well be spent by the doctors concerned in considering the proposals put to them by the committee.

Dr. Summerskill: Is the Minister aware that his Ministry is anxious to encourage group practices? I cannot agree that responsible men take four and a half months to decide upon certain proposals made by his Ministry, and if he allows them to wait for four and a half months it discourages rather than encourages group practices. Will he reconsider this period?

Mr. Powell: The proposals are not made by my Ministry but by the committee concerned, but I have no reason to suppose that this lapse of time is discouraging applications for group practice. It is very important that the proposals should be properly considered, both by the committee and by the doctors concerned.

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Health what was the maximum loan


granted per doctor in a group practice receiving loans from the fund established for that purpose.

Mr. Powell: Two thousand, five hundred pounds.

Mr. Pavitt: Will the Minister resist any pressure that may arise to reduce this sum of £2,500 in order that there shall be more smaller loans? Will he consult his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view to raising the amount of money available for this very important project?

Mr. Powell: That is the maximum. The committee has discretion to lend larger sums in particular cases.

Mr. K. Robinson: Is it the Minister or the medical profession that decides the aggregate amount of money available to this committee in a year, since a Written Answer the Minister gave me recently indicated that this amount of money has been absorbed in about half the year in respect of the three years to which he referred, and it should be much greater if we are to encourage group practice?

Mr. Powell: Since that time, as I think the hon. Member is aware, the amount available has been increased. The work which is going on also refers to the allocation for the coming year.

Atmospheric Pollution, Bromborough

Sir H. Oakshott: asked the Minister of Health what reports he has received of ill-effects on health resulting from dust containing sulphuric acid, believed to emanate from the power station at Bromborough, Cheshire; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt): My right hon. Friend has had a letter from my hon. Friend and another from three residents. I am informed that the local authority is investigating the effects of this dust, including its effects on health. Any question of controlling its emission would be for my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

Sir H. Oakshott: I recognise that the responsibility of my hon. Friend's Department is rather limited in this

matter. Nevertheless, I would ask her to keep a close watch on this situation, in view of the genuine local anxiety that exists as to the possible effects on health of these emissions of sulphuric dust?

Miss Pitt: In reply to our inquiries, the local Medical Officer of Health for Bebington and Bromborough told us that measures taken earlier this year by the Generating Board to reduce the emission of this dust have not been entirely successful. He stated that there is possibly some evidence of resulting skin irritation, but he does not accept that there is evidence of ulceration of the mouth and nose, blisters and sore throats, as my hon. Friend stated in his letter to my right hon. Friend. Nevertheless, I am sure that my right hon. Friend would wish to assure my hon. Friend that he will keep in touch with the medical officer of health.

Dr. Summerskill: In view of the high incidence of chest complaints in the country, can the hon. Lady say how strong is the liaison between her Department and the Alkali Inspectorate of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government?

Miss Pitt: That is really another question, but, as I implied in my Answer to the Question, responsibility for action rests with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, and where there is a health aspect it is dealt with through the local medical officer of health.

Social Workers

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Health why he is unable to promise legislation in this Session to establish a national council for social work training, the urgent need for which has been accepted; and what new arrangements for training social workers in the health and welfare services he intends to make pending legislation.

Mr. Powell: I am in consultation with my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Education, about the early provision of courses on the lines recommended in the Younghusband Report. These need not await the establishment of a National Council.

Mr. Robinson: I am very glad to have the information asked for in the second part of my Question, but the


Minister has not answered the first part. Is he aware that eighteen months have elapsed since this report was published? If he is not able to introduce legislation in the present Session, it will be another eighteen months before the council can be set up. Since the Mental Health Act cannot be implemented, so far as local authorities are concerned, until this council is set up, will he get a move on?

Mr. Powell: I am anxious to get moving on this, but I do not believe that the fact that a council has not yet been established is delaying practical measures to get training going as widely as possible, but I am concentrating on both.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Rampton Mental Hospital

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Health what reforms have taken place at the Rampton Mental Hospital during the past two years; what reforms are contemplated, or under consideration; and when the present practice requiring men and women patients to be in bed by 7.30 p.m. to suit the convenience of the staffing arrangements is to be changed, in the best interests of the patients, until a later hour.

Mr. Powell: Since the answer to the first part of the Question is long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I hope that a later bedtime for male patients can be introduced from 1st January; the same will be done on the female side as soon as recruitment permits.

Mr. Dodds: I should like to thank the Minister for what he has done, and hope for the best in what I read in the report. Is he aware that parents who have been travelling for many years to Rampton to see long-term patients are deeply appreciative of the splendid reforms which have taken place in the last year? They are appreciated very much, both in respect of the patients and the care and welfare visitors themselves receive. Will the right hon. Gentleman thank his staff and the superintendent for those reforms?

Mr. Powell: indicated assent.

Dr. Summerskill: Can the Minister say how long he intends to keep the women in bed?

Mr. Powell: That depends upon the rate of recruitment—but it will be no longer than I can help.

Following is the information:
Changes which have taken place in the past two years include the following:

(1) An increased programme of social rehabilitation, including additional classes for patients (on housewifery, hobbies and remedial education), also special classes for low-grade patients and for patients awaiting transfer.
(2) Appointment of a psychiatric social worker and of a chiropodist.
(3) Modernisation of the sanitary facilities.
(4) Increased amenities for patients, including television in all wards, refurnishing of some wards, improvement of female patients' clothing, and extension of male workshops.
(5) Provision of additional bus service for relatives visiting Rampton.
(6) Increased visits by people from outside to patients with no relatives.

Other changes which are planned include the following:

(a) I hope that as from 1st January it will be possible to reduce the hours of the male nursing staff from 52½ to 44 per week and to introduce a three-shift system.
(b) The same will be done on the female side as soon as recruitment permits.
(c) There is to be an increase in the medical establishment at the hospital.
(d) a football field and running track are under construction.
(e) There are proposals for building a gymnasium and a church.
(f) An improvement in the library service is being considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HOUSING

Mr. Lipton: asked the Prime Minister if he will separate responsibility for housing from the present responsibilities of the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs and establish a separate Ministry of Housing.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
No, Sir.

Mr. Lipton: I appreciate the significance of that reply. I am anxious to meet the Government as far as I can, but will the Government, as an alternative, consider abolishing the Ministry of


Housing and Local Government altogether? Is there any need for a Ministry of Housing and Local Government if, as the Government claim, housing is no longer a national problem?

Mr. Butler: The answer to the first part of that question is the same as before—No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLARIS SUBMARINE BASE

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister if he will give the precise date on which the agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government about the Polaris base was signed.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
The final arrangements on questions of principle were settled on 31st of October.

Mr. Hughes: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us why he took ten months to negotiate this agreement? What objections did the Government raise during the ten months, and to what extent were these assurances given by the American Government? Can he explain why it took such a long time, and can he assure us that Her Majesty's Government put up a strong resistance to this before they were overruled by the American Government?

Mr. Butler: I cannot give the latter assurance for which the hon. Member asks, but it was a long continuing process of negotiation, the full details of which were set out clearly by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 15th November, in a Written Answer to a Question by the hon. Member.

Mr. S. Silverman: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether, in fact, there is any document which was signed and what he means by the words "finalised" and "interchange"? Is there any record of the agreement? Is there a document? When was it signed, and can it be seen?

Mr. Butler: Naturally, the documents are confidential, but there was a series of exchanges and, as the Prime Minister indicated, they were written and the

whole was finalised, as he said on 15th November, at the end of October. I have now given the actual date, 31st October.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain this mystery? Why can the House not be informed about the details of the treaty between the United Kingdom Government and the United States Government, or an agreement or understanding, whatever it may be? Why can we not be informed about it?

Mr. Speaker: Not on this Question, which is confined to the date.

Mr. Shinwell: I will put another question, Mr. Speaker, if I may. Will the right hon. Gentleman say, as the agreement was not finalised until 31st October, as he told the House, why was it that when a verbal agreement was reached—and the Prime Minister told us to that effect—the House was not informed about the verbal understanding?

Mr. Butler: Because the final agreement between the two Governments to reach an understanding over this and to make it public was made, as I have said, at the end of October and finalised on 31st October by a series of exchanges. That being so, it was very shortly after that that my right hon. Friend informed the House about it.

Mr. Rankin: On Thursday last, the Prime Minister mentioned an understanding and also a written understanding. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether those two understandings were reached on the same day, and can he guarantee that there are no unwritten misunderstandings?

Mr. Butler: I can give an undertaking as to the latter part of the question. As to the former part, I can only refer to the account of the consecutive sequences given by the Prime Minister in answer to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes).

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. Would you be good enough, Mr. Speaker, to explain to me, if not to the House, why you refused to allow me to ask a supplementary question on the agreement when that is precisely what was referred to in the original Question?

Mr. Speaker: My recollection—but I should like to look at the Report—is that


I was disallowing the right hon. Gentleman because I thought he went outside the subject matter of the Question, which was as to the date on which the agreement referred to was signed.

Mr. Shinwell: Further to that point of order. With very great respect, surely if a reference is made in the original Question to the date of an agreement, that obviously implies that there was an agreement? Is not an hon. Member entitled to ask a supplementary question about the nature of the agreement?

Mr. Speaker: No, not on a Question related only to the date. My recollection is that the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question was on the particulars of the agreement, why were not the Government giving information about the particulars or the details?

Mr. Silverman: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the original Question asked him on what date the agreement was signed? Will he also bear in mind that his answers so far have not stated specifically whether any document was signed or not? Will he tell us specifically whether the agreements, the understandings or whatever be the true description of them, are embodied in the final document which is available and to which reference can be made, or did the interchange or finalisation take some other form?

Mr. Butler: I think the best answer, as I have said on several occasions, was that given by the Prime Minister on 15th November, when he indicated the consecutive series of exchanges, some technical and some political, which took place over a considerable length of time. They took place, some of them orally and some of them written, and that is quite clear from the Prime Minister's Answer on 15th November. The final exchange which took place between the Governments prior to an agreement on both sides to publication took place at the end of October, namely, in particular, on 31st October.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Barking

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. DRIBERG: To ask the Minister of Labour if he will state the number of

unemployed registered at the Barking Employment Exchange, Essex, at the latest convenient date; and if he will give the figures for the corresponding dates in 1948, 1950, 1955, and 1959.

Mr. Driberg: Mr. Speaker, in order to save time I will take a Written Answer.

Derby Trustee Savings Bank

Mr. Oliver: asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the disagreement between the management and staff of the Derby Trustee Savings Bank concerning salaries and the ban now taking place on all overtime; and if he will take steps to effect an early settlement of this dispute.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Peter Thomas): I am aware of the difficulties referred to by the hon. and learned Member. My right hon. Friend has already made the services of the officers of the Ministry available to help bring about a settlement.

Mr. Oliver: Could the hon. Gentleman say when this offer was made to bring the two parties together, having regard to the length of time that this dispute has been proceeding?

Mr. Thomas: I am afraid I cannot give the hon. and learned Member the exact date. Both parties to the dispute have been seen by the officers of the Ministry, and our officers are at present discussing the employees' difficulties with the officials of the union with a view to finding how best they can help resolve the matter.

Mr. G. Brown: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the problem seems to be that while the union is very anxious to negotiate with the bank, the bank management is saying that it cannot negotiate with the union locally because of the existence of some national body, and the national body is saying that it cannot negotiate because this is a matter of reference to local banks? Will the Minister see the bank authorities and see what can be done to get them into a frame of mind to meet the union.

Mr. Thomas: As I have said, our officials have seen both sides, bath the union representatives and also the bank representatives.

Mr. G. Brown: I apologise for repeating this. That is not the problem. The union is anxious for a meeting and it is the bank which is refusing it. In a letter to me today, the chairman said that he cannot negotiate. On the other hand, the national body says it cannot negotiate and the problem, therefore, is wholly on the employers' side. Will the hon. Gentleman get the officials to see the bank again to persuade it to enter negotiations?

Mr. Thomas: My right hon. Friend will take note of what the right hon. Member says.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Cafés and Restaurants (Washing Facilities)

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will introduce legislation to amend the Public Health Act, 1936, with a view to increasing the washing facilities in cafés and restaurants.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph): There are practical difficulties about this. My right hon. Friend will bear the suggestion in mind, but he cannot hold out any prospect of legislation in the near future.

Mr. Stonehouse: In considering this, will the Minister bear in mind that facilities for washing and also toilet facilities in cafés and restaurants, particularly of the small variety, are quite inadequate? Is he aware that the municipal authorities are anxious to have this legislation?

Sir K. Joseph: My right hon. Friend has already had representations from the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Jackson) as well as those from the hon. Member, and he will certainly bear those points in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Ford Motor Company, Dagenham

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that many of the components of the vehicles made by Fords of Dagenham are manufactured in Lincoln; and

whether he will make a statement on the proposed acquisition by a foreign company of a large number of the shares of this company.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): I am aware that some of the components of vehicles made by Fords of Dagenham are manufactured in Lincoln. As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to my statement after Questions today. The statement also covers the question of vehicle components.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, DAGENHAM

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): I will, with permission, make a statement about Fords.
I have had to decide whether Treasury consent should be given, under Section 9 of the Exchange Control Act, 1947, for the transfer to a non-resident purchaser, the Ford Motor Company of the United States of America, of such ordinary shares of the Ford Motor Company of the United Kingdom as the United States company does not already own. The Ford Motor Company of the United States of America already owns 54·6 per cent. of the ordinary capital of the United Kingdom company. Of the remaining 45·4 per cent., about 6 per cent. is owned outside the United Kingdom, and about 39 per cent. owned in the United Kingdom. That corrects the figures which I have previously given.
In taking my decision, I have had to have regard to a number of considerations. The House knows that the offer is to be one of 145s. 6d. for each £1 share. It is for the shareholders concerned to decide whether or not to accept this price. I make no judgment on it except to say that I am satisfied, after discussion with the Chairman of the United Kingdom company, that it is not outside the reasonable range of negotiation between a willing buyer and a willing seller. Therefore, I have decided that I would not be justified in withholding consent to the transaction because of the price offered.
A more general consideration is whether there is any appreciable risk that if this minority shareholding passes into the ownership of the American company our economy will suffer or the position


of those employed by or otherwise dependent upon the United Kingdom company will be adversely affected. The House will have seen the statements issued by the Ford Motor Company of America about the objectives which they have in mind in seeking to acquire complete ownership of the share of the United Kingdom company.
I have discussed the position with representatives of both the United States and the United Kingdom companies. As a result, I have been given the following explanations and assurances. The purpose has been described as to obtain greater operational flexibility and to enable Ford United States to co-ordinate better its American and European operations so that it may be able to compete more effectively in world markets. I sought some explanations as to what that meant. I was told that it meant that if the offer were to be accepted, their decisions—that is to say, the decisions of the American company—with regard to expansion, production and exports in Europe would not be affected by the fact that profits from activity in the United Kingdom would belong only to the extent of just over half to the parent company. When developments were being planned, the possibly limiting factor of the United Kingdom company being only 55 per cent. owned by the parent company would be eliminated.
I therefore formed the view that full American ownership would lead to a still more vigorous development of the Ford enterprise here and to even greater efforts in export markets, particularly inasmuch as the American company would have the incentive of having to secure a return on its heavy and extended investment here. Without full ownership of the United Kingdom company there might be a greater incentive for the United States company to concentrate efforts on the development of the German company, which is nearly 100 per cent. owned.
I have also received assurances on the following matters. I was told that the programme already announced of expansion on Merseyside, at Basildon, in Essex, and elsewhere, involving expenditure estimated at £70 million, would go forward. The United Kingdom company has always ploughed back a high proportion

of its profits for future development, and that policy would continue. I was assured that there would be continuity in management and employment policies. The majority of the members of the Board would continue to be British and would still be under the chairmanship of Sir Patrick Hennessy. There would be no change in employment policy and no intention to take control of that policy out of the hands of the Board of the United Kingdom company. The United Kingdom company already obtains nearly 100 per cent. of the components in the United Kingdom. That policy would continue and full American ownership would indeed put the United Kingdom company in a better position to compete in world markets for the sale of components made here.
I next have to consider whether this transaction, if completed, would mean that control of a large proportion of a major industry would be in foreign hands. That consideration, however, was not really relevant in this particular case, because control was already with the United States company, as it has been since the United Kingdom company started in 1911. Had it not been so, the company would never have come here and this huge industrial concern would never have been built up.
But I wish to make it clear that I have come to my conclusion upon the facts in this case only. In another one, the balance might point the other way. There may well be cases where proposals may seem attractive from a commercial point of view, but where, nevertheless, it may be necessary to refuse consent to transfer of control for reasons of national security or the significance of a particular firm or industry to our economic life.
I am satisfied, as a result of my discussions, that so far from our having anything to fear from this proposed transaction, its purpose is to strengthen the United Kingdom company and particularly to enable it to compete more effectively in world markets. The proposed investment of over £100 million in the United Kingdom is a sign of confidence in our country and it would, in my judgment, be a grievous mistake if the Government were to frustrate this by withholding consent for the transaction.


Accordingly, the Government have decided that approval should be given to the proposed transfer of shares if an offer is accepted by the shareholders.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has asked me to say that it will be agreeable to the Government for a debate to take place this evening. We hope that the necessary Government business can be obtained in order that the debate upon my statement may begin not later than 7 o'clock, when we would propose to move the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
I am, for the convenience of the House, arranging for a number of copies of this statement to be available in the Vote Office forthwith.

Mr. H. Wilson: As we shall debate this matter this evening, it would be more convenient to the House to leave the general issues until then. The Chancellor claims to have obtained the facts which he did not have when he spoke to us last week. Apparently, the fact which has moved him most relates to the substitution of 100 per cent. for 54 per cent. control. In view of his suggestion that 54 per cent. of control might mean that the American company was half-hearted about development in this country, is the Chancellor suggesting that the company has been half-hearted about development here while it has had only 54 per cent. control? If not, what is the necessity for this major transaction? Secondly, in his negotiations with the Ford Company last week, did the Chancellor secure any assurances about the shipment of Ford cars from this country into the American market?

Mr. Lloyd: I am not suggesting for a moment that the Ford Company has been half-hearted in its developments in this country so far. My considerations have been rather about the future and the development of other markets overseas. I have had no discussion about the import of motor cars from this country to the United States, because that is not a matter which would be affected by this transaction at all.

Mr. de Freitas: Is the Chancellor aware that many of us are still suspicious of his words "operational flexibility"? Does he realise that the future of small engineering cities such as Lincoln, referred to in any Question No. 58,

is already being determined more and more by decisions made by large companies, perhaps in the City of London, which have no local interests at all? That is bad enough, but it is terrifying if decisions are made, which affect cities such as Lincoln, in a foreign country by a foreign company which, in this case, regards Lincoln as just the name of another motor car and has not the slightest interest in the city.

Mr. Lloyd: I am well aware of that anxiety and it is one of the matters which has been in my mind, but that sort of decision can already be taken in a foreign country, because they have control. The whole point which I think the hon. Member should consider from the point of view of his constituents is this: is it to the advantage of the people making components at Lincoln that future developments should take place in another country where the subsidiary is 100 per cent. owned?

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The time which we have to debate this subject will depend on our reaching it as early as possible. It is in the common interest to stop this process of questions now.

Later—

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. Arising out of the statement just made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, you will remember, Mr. Speaker, that in the middle of or towards the end of last week, my hon. Friends sought your leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9, and you said that as there was no Ministerial responsibility you were not able to grant their request. As I understood it, what lay behind that decision was that until an application had been made the Minister was not responsible for dealing with it. The information then was that there had been no such application.
It now appears from the Chancellor's statement that he has been in negotiation with the Ford Company over this past week, and I think it is probably an unfair inference to say that he did not begin to consider it until Thursday or Friday. He has had conversations with the British company, he has had conversations with the American company, and the indications are—because he used the word "Government"—that the matter


on the basis of that information has been considered by the Cabinet, which has reached a conclusion about it.
In those circumstances, is it not clear that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had responsibility on the day when my hon. Friends sought to raise it? If that is so, it is of some importance to the House, because today we shall be considering the matter on the basis of a fait accompli, whereas if we had been able to debate it last week we could have debated it in circumstances in which the argument might still have influenced the Government to come to another decision.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member. I do not want to have a post mortem on my Rulings. It would be quite false to assume that the sole ground on which I did not allow the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 was the view which I put, that at that time there existed no Ministerial responsibility. If anybody will look at the Motions which were offered, it is manifest that they were not within the Standing Order. I doubt whether it is worth bothering much more about it now.

HOUSE OF COMMONS ACCOMMODATION (AD HOC COMMITTEE)

Mr. Speaker: In accordance with my announcement to the House on 26th October last, I now reappoint the ad hoc Committee set up in the last Session to advise me on accommodation matters. The Committee's terms of reference will be as follows:
To consider the proposals to improve the accommodation for Members in the House of Commons set forth in the Minister of Works' statement of 31st March, 1960, and, in particular, the proposal to convert the roof space over the Committee Rooms into office accommodation; and, with the exclusion of Mr. Speaker's House proper, to make recommendations.
There is no change in the composition of the Committee.

SCOTTISH AFFAIRS

Matter of Education in Scotland, being a matter relating exclusively to Scotland, referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for their consideration. [Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.42 p.m.

The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Wood): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The purpose of this Bill is to make a limited, but I think important, modification to the Electricity Act, 1957. The House knows that Section 2 (7) of that Act limits the power of manufacture by the Central Electricity Generating Board to
anything required by the Generating Board or by any Area Board for purposes of research or development or for the repair or maintenance of their equipment".
The Bill seeks to leave that limitation in being, except in one important respect. Its aim is to give to the Central Electricity Generating Board permission to produce radio isotopes in its nuclear reactors. Perhaps I can take a few minutes of the time of the House to explain, for the benefit of anyone who does not know, what an isotope is and what isotopes do. I will try, shortly, to state why the Generating Board should have this power.
I should like, first, to apologise to the House for my lack of qualifications to give a scientific lecture on the subject of isotopes. Before I made my maiden speech in the House of Commons, I received advice from an old and very wise Member. He said to me. "Whatever else you do, do avoid giving the impression, even if it is true, that you know a great deal more about the subject that anyone listening to you". I shall have no difficulty whatsoever in following that advice this afternoon. Indeed, what I shall say first about isotopes is, in the scientific sense, elementary, because it is about elements, but in every other sense, to me particularly, it is extremely complicated.
There are about 100 elements from which everything is made, and all of them are composed of atoms. I am told that each atom of each element is chemically the same, but it was discovered some time ago that many elements consisted of a mixture of atoms of different mass. The isotope is, in its


strict sense, an atom which is chemically identical with other atoms of the same element, but one which is different physically—that is, in weight. The term "isotope" or "radioisotope" is more generally and loosely applied to artificially produced radioactive materials. An important method of their production is by placing a target material in a nuclear reactor and exposing it to radiation.
I should now like to say a few words about what these objects do. There is, as I think is generally known, a growing use of isotopes in industry, medicine and scientific research. What they do is to emit radiation which can be detected by photography, by electronic instruments and in other ways, although they may be embedded in other materials.
For instance, in medical research, radioactive iron injected into the blood has revealed the working of the chemical mechanism of the blood's colouring matter. Radioactive iodine has revealed much the same information about the working of the thyroid gland.
In general, when a sample of the body's constituents is "labeled" with a radioisotope the course and timing of the bodily processes can be detected. In other words, if scientists will permit me a homely little simile, it is rather like having a spy sending back messages about the behaviour of those around him.
Similarly in industry, radioisotopes are used like X-ray machines to make examinations through thicknesses of material to test, for example, the quality of castings and welds. They can be incorporated in liquid or gas and, if so, they enable the flow of that liquid or gas to be traced. They can be watched. It therefore makes possible such things as the spotting of leaks and the checking of the efficiency of filters, and I understand that useful work was done with isotopes in detecting the movement of mud in estuaries. There is, therefore, a variety of uses to which these useful little things can be put.
I shall try to explain to the House why, in our view, it is most necessary for the Generating Board to have this power in the future which it does not enjoy at

present. Our trade in radioisotopes is steadily expanding and the percentage of exports to total sales in this country is much greater than it was five years ago. In 1954–55, the export sales were £160,000, which was one-third of the total sales. In 1959–60, the export sales were about four times as much, namely, £620,000, more than half the total sales of isotopes in this country.
The United States, which is our principal rival, has been overtaken and left considerably behind. It has a considerable internal market to satisfy, but its export sales are well below ours and they are not, like ours, increasing very rapidly. France is a long way behind but is making rapid progress, and we are likely in future to get competition not only from France, but from other countries where reactors are being built, and where irradiation capacity—the ability to do this—is becoming available.
This country's present position is that the irradiation capacity available to the Atomic Energy Authority is now approaching its limit. At the same time, as I have suggested, there are large opportunities to be seized if the Generating Board, with its rapidly expanding capacity over the next few years, can be empowered to produce isotopes in its new reactors. I suggest that if we give the Board this power, the country will enjoy an irradiation capacity that will be comparable with any available elsewhere.
I should like to make three further points about this short Bill. The first is that it is the Board that will carry out this irradiation, some of which, I should explain, is likely to take more than a year—some materials will need that length of time before they become properly radioactive—but it will be the Atomic Energy Authority that will be responsible for the finishing of the material that the Board has irradiated.
Secondly, I should like to dispel any doubts that may be in hon. Member's minds by saying that the irradiation of these isotopes will have no adverse effects at all on the capacity of the reactors to generate electricity, because the target material to be irradiated will merely take the place of the control rods that would otherwise be necessary to keep the reactor under control.
Thirdly, the cost to the Board of adapting the two reactors—Bradwell and Hinckley—that it intends to use if the Bill is enacted, would be about £100,000 each, compared with the cost of the stations themselves, which is roughly £50 million. Having made considerable inquiry, I am quite convinced that the return on this extra investment of £100,000 in each case would be very satisfactory, and, therefore, represents an additional reason for requiring the Board to have this power.
After what I have said, I hope that there is no need to stress the valuable contribution that the expansion of this trade can make both to our exporting position and in those spheres that I have mentioned, such as industry, medicine and scientific research. The position is, as the House knows, that the Board will soon have the capacity to take advantage of these opportunities, but that, it will otherwise be illegal, so I am advised, because of the 1957 Act, for the Board to manufacture these isotopes for sale.
I therefore invite the House to give the Bill a Second Reading. It would have the limited effect of removing this single disability from the Board, and would make it possible for the Board and for the country to take advantage of the opportunities that offer in the future.

3.54 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Lee: Any reservations I had about the Bill, and about advising my hon. Friends to support it, or not to oppose it, were eliminated when I heard the scientific elucidation of the mysteries of the chemical forms of isotopes to which the right hon. Gentleman has just treated the House. He said that one of their qualities was that they helped to discover the source of leaks; I wonder whether the Chief Whips on both sides are interested in this somewhat revolutionary suggestion.
The Minister said that the sole reason for the necessity for the Bill arises from the wording of Section 2 (7) of the 1957 Act. I am rather interested in that Section, and I had an idea that that would probably turn out to be the case. I have before me the OFFICIAL REPORT for 3rd April, 1957, containing the Report stage of the 1957 Bill, as it then was.
It appears that there had been a great amount of discussion in Committee, and that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) and some of his colleagues had insisted at that stage that the suggested wording of the Bill should be changed. The present President of the Board of Trade, then the Paymaster-General, was not seized of the importance of the Amendment that the hon. Member for Kidderminster and his hon. Friends sought to move. Indeed, he was adamant that it was by no means necessary to have it, and pointed out that it would probably restrict the scope of the Bill.
During the proceedings of Standing Committee D, on 7th February, 1957 which was dealing with the Bill, he said:
We must give them the maximum degree of commercial freedom in order that they may work as efficiently as possible, and it is very difficult to see how we are to give the proper commercial freedom if we do not leave the Board free to manufacture its own equipment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 7th February, 1957; c. 77.]
The then Paymaster-General was quite certain that to accept a form of words that limited the 1957 Measure would handicap the Board in regard to the very problems that we are now discussing. Strangely enough, by the time the Report stage of that Bill was reached a remarkable transformation had taken place. The present President of the Board of Trade was so sure that he had been utterly and completely wrong in Committee that he actually moved the words as an Amendment to his own words, which the right hon. Gentleman has now described to us as being the limiting factor that forces the Government to bring this Bill forward now.
I understand the pressures that come from certain groups on both sides of the House, but it appears to us that we are now seeing the results of gross irresponsibility on the part of Ministers Who were not open-minded on the issue in Committee, and who said that they were certain they were right to give the Board powers to manufacture. They were overwhelmed, though not, I think, by argument—I do not know how it happened. Certainly, in between the Committee and the Report stages, the President of the Board of Trade switched over completely and, as I have just said, included in an Amendment that he


moved the words that now force the Government to bring this Bill here.
During the Report stage on 3rd April, 1957, my former hon. Friend, Mr. Palmer, asked:
Has the Minister any knowledge of the electrical manufacturing industry having complained, either to the Central Electricity Authority or to his own Department, that these powers have been used or are likely to be used?
There was then a bull-like intervention from a certain part of the House and the OFFICIAL REPORT reads:
MR. NABARRO: They have complained to me, though. That is what matters.
The President of the Board of Trade, doubtless when the echoes had died down, said:
I cannot recall whether the manufacturers have complained to my Department, but certainly not only one, but several of my hon. Friends have represented this case."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd April, 1957; Vol. 568, c. 462.]
In other words, we are clear as to what had happened to the unfortunate President of the Board of Trade, as he now is, between the Committee and the Report stages. Indeed, I see that when so gentle and considerate a Member as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) spoke on that occasion, he said:
The Paymaster-General has made an extremely gallant effort to dissemble his profound sense of humiliation.… I think, however, that his effort failed, and this is about as humiliating a spectacle as the House has been treated to for some time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd April, 1957; Vol. 568, c. 464.]
That is the only reason that the Bill is now before us. In the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill, we see:
Clause 1 (1) permits the Board to produce radioactive material in their reactors for purposes of sale and to sell it. This provision is necessary because the Board's power to manufacture anything is at present limited by section 2 (7) of the Electricity Act, 1957, to things which they or any Area Board may require for research or development, or for repair or maintenance.
which, of course, is precisely the Amendment that the President of the Board of Trade moved in 1957.
The right hon. Gentleman gave us some very helpful figures indicating the way that exports are increasing. I see that the figure in the Bill for additional capital outlay is £250,000. It would

obviously appear to be a very good investment to lay out that sum, in view of the figures which the right hon. Gentleman has been able to give us of the volume of exports. He intimated that we may well be meeting severe competition in the future, and I am sure that it is right and proper that we should assist the Board in every way that we possibly can. Therefore, we welcome the Bill and we have no intention of attempting to delay its passage through the House.
Questions of safety, which are bound to arise on such a Bill, are matters on which the right hon. Gentleman or his Parliamentary Secretary ought to touch when winding up the debate. We are well aware that in an industry such as this, in which change is taking place so rapidly, despite the formidable list of legislation which the House has now passed, we can never feel that we are really abreast of events. I am sure that the A.E.A., with all its knowledge of nuclear development, has a good safety code itself. I have been looking at some of the regulations which the Generating Board has, and from what I read in such productions as the Electrical Power Engineer I am sure that it has an effective safety code for employees who come in contact with this kind of problem.
Looking at the Electrical Power Engineer for October, I was interested to see that there was a meeting of the Authority with the trade unions concerned, and that a whole list of suggestions were the made by the trade unions, none of which was in the slightest degree frivolous and which were seriously considered by the representatives of the Board. It was pointed out that at further meetings it was hoped to consider them again and to include them as time passed.
No matter how effective we may consider the safety regulations may be, we can never look upon them as having reached such a stage that we can all be satisfied that the maximum amount of safety exists. It is, I think, something with which the Government will constantly have to keep in touch, to use the experience of the A.E.A. and of the Generating Board itself, and, where necessary, to include in legislation the results of the code which the employees of the various boards agree upon when they are shown to be very important in guaranteeing safety.
I know that when we are discussing a subject like this there is that element of the unknown, with the exception perhaps of the right hon. Gentleman; there is that feeling of the mystery of atomic energy the feeling that we have to concentrate more and more on safety precautions which would not be necessary in any other industry. I want to guard against that approach. I remember the late Aneurin Bevan, when speaking at this Box, once saying that he was sure that one could effect perfect safety in the coal mines, the only reservation being that we should not get any coal. We must seek to guard against that sort of approach.
I was reading a few lines in a newspaper the other day about the deaths of two miners in Durham. The incident was not regarded in the slightest degree as one demanding headlines. To me, it was as great a tragedy as if the two people had died as a result of radiation. Therefore, I am trying to keep the balance right in saying that we must eliminate the feeling that we can never get efficient safety regulations in these industries merely because we are dealing with isotopes.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: I have been listening very intently to my hon. Friend on the subject of the dangers of radiation. All that he has said has been very interesting, but would he not agree that safety measures would come within the terms of the Factory Acts?

Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend has a point there. The last Factory Act, with which we dealt towards the end of the last Parliament, touched upon this matter. There are certain provisions in that Act for the registration of certain types of people. From that point of view it does deal with safety matters. We have a whole host of Acts which deal with various aspects of safety and that kind of thing connected with this industry. But I do not believe that merely because we have this volume of legislation we should feel that we have necessarily reached the ultimate in safety. I do not believe that we have in an industry which is changing as this one is.
I was wondering whether the right hon. Gentleman could say something about the safety precautions which will exist in the industries or professions of those employed by customers of the Board. So far as the Board is concerned, I think

that we are doing fairly well. But now we are branching out. As the right hon. Gentleman said, industry will be using isotopes in a far greater degree than in the past. An increasing number of industries will be using them.
My anxiety relates to the conditions of safety which will obtain in many of those industries using isotopes and such materials for the first time without much experience of the results which can flow from their use. I wonder whether the Electricity Generating Board itself will stipulate certain conditions before agreeing to the sale of isotopes to customers who are just branching out into their use.
I have read through the speeches made by the Minister for Science and by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power when the Bill dealing with this subject was introduced in November, 1959. As I then read it, Section 10 of the Radioactive Substances Act, 1960, stipulated merely that where adequate facilities for waste disposal were not available to people using these materials it would be for the Minister himself to make the arrangements.
I am not very happy about that. I should regard the lack of facilities for disposal of waste as a good reason for refusing to register such a customer at all. I know that the disposal of waste is a subject upon which opinion varies greatly among scientists. There is a great amount of radioactive waste now being disposed of in to the sea and in other ways. This is probably one of the most contentious points among scientists in this work, and, surely, it is an issue which we should now be examining very closely at a time when we are embarking upon something quite new to many of the industries which will in future be using isotopes of this kind.
These are some of the reservations which we on this side have, not, as I say, because we oppose in any way the purpose of the Bill. We should, however, like to have from the Government an explanation about the adequacy of safety arrangements among customers of the Board, and we should like to know also whether the point I have referred to in Section 10 of the Radioactive Substances Act could be turned the other way so that people who have not the facilities for getting rid of radioactive waste would be deemed to be people whose


consideration of the dangers was not really adequate and who should not, therefore, be granted permission to use such materials. We wish the Government to give us a further explanation on those matters before we part with the Bill today.
I began by saying that the reason why we have to waste the time of the House now was the political bias displayed by the hon. Member for Kidderminster and his hon. Friends who, obviously, have such great supremacy over the thinking of the President of the Board of Trade. On many occasions, when the Government have been in trouble, the cry has gone round Whitehall, "Send for Reggie" Today, it has probably turned into a whisper, "Smuggle Reggie out", fortified by—who knows?, for I see there is a gap on one of the benches below the Gangway—a supplication to our friends the police to turn back at the gates any car sporting the numbers NAB 1, NAB 2, NAB 3 or NAB 4. We have often seen this kind of humiliation inflicted upon the Government as a result of action of the kind I have mentioned.
On this occasion, the arguments adduced in Committee by so many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have been shown to be well-founded and justified. Indeed, the logic of the position now is that the President of the Board of Trade should be leading the opposition into the Lobby against the Bill passing. For our part, we are consistent. We have looked constructively upon the efforts of the Government to give back to the Generating Board powers which it should never have been debarred from having, powers which, in fact, were vested in some private companies long before nationalisation, in order that it could carry out the objects for which it was in business.
I hope that this will be a lesson to right hon. and hon. Members opposite, and that political spleen of the type we have seen, which has resulted in the Government having to bring this Bill before us today, will not again be in evidence; and that they will, in the fullness of time, even manage to master some of the people who, now, apparently are far more in charge of the government of the country than those who sit on the Front Bench.

4.15 p.m.

Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett: The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) devoted a good deal of his speech to matters of safety. I am not aware that the extraction or marketing of radioactive isotopes will in any way decrease the safety of nuclear power stations. This is a highly technical point, but I should not have thought that they would.

Mr. Lee: I did not say that. I was referring to the customers to whom the isotopes would be sold.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I am coming to that.
As I understood him, the hon. Gentleman suggested that the Central Electricity Generating Board should be encouraged to stipulate conditions—I think those were his words—under which the radioactive isotopes might be used. I can only express the hope that my right hon. Friend will allow no such practice. Whoever's business it may be to stipulate conditions, I cannot think that it is the business of the Generating Board to do so. The great danger, if it tried to do so, would be that people wanting to buy radioactive isotopes would go to some other source and we should not succeed in selling them.
After all, although the use of these isotopes is comparatively new, it is not all that new. They have been used very extensively. This country is already the biggest exporter in the world of radioactive isotopes, and the object of the Bill, as I understand it, is partly to maintain that position and partly to enable the Board to exploit a very profitable side line.
The major premise of the hon. Gentleman's speech was the suggestion that this amending Bill has been forced upon the Government by the 1957 Act. The inference to be drawn is that, if there had not been the 1957 Act, it would have been legal for the electricity undertaking to go into this business without further legislation. I am not a lawyer, but I do not think that that is right. I challenge the hon. Gentleman altogether upon that. I think that under the Act as originally passed by the Labour Government it would have been necessary to pass some form of legislation to make this particular sideline possible.

Mr. Lee: The hon. and gallant Gentleman challenged me. The 1947 Act did not prohibit it. If he listened to his right hon. Friend, and if he has read the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, paragraph 2, he will understand that I was precisely relating that matter to that which is now put in the Bill itself.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I am merely expressing the opinion that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. I remind him that any organisation established by Act of Parliament is to some extent circumscribed in its activities by the nature of the Act. Does the hon. Gentleman recall the parallel case when, in 1932, I think it was, the Minister of Labour endeavoured to start pig farms for the unemployed? The courts ruled that that was unlawful because it was not within the powers of the relevant Act. I think that the same thing would happen here. If British Railways, for instance, were to go in for, shall we say, agriculture, the courts would, I think, grant an injunction to restrain them.
However, even on the narrower point of what happened when this matter was under consideration when the Bill was passed in 1957, the hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken in saying that the Government surrendered entirely to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). I was on the Committee and I took part in the proceedings. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the record, he will find that, so far from accepting that the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster further restricted what might be done, I said that, if ever the undertaking went into the manufacturing business, a statue would be put up to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster for having rendered it possible.
The hon. Member for Newton did not say that my hon. Friend's Amendment was in substitution for a Government Amendment which, to my way of thinking anyhow, was very much more restrictive in its effect than the one which was actually adopted. However, I do not think that these excursions into history are all that interesting or all that relevant. I do agree—this is really what brought me to my feet—that this Bill raises an important question of principle with regard to the nationalised industries.

After all, the case for allowing nuclear power stations to extract this valuable by-product themselves are obvious. They are so obvious that they do not need restating.
The Government have repeatedly affirmed that the test for a nationalised industry should be its profitability. My hon. Friends, who have no love for nationalised industries, have repeatedly said that those that exist should be run, as far as possible, as normal commercial undertakings. If those words mean anything at all, they must mean that a public undertaking is free, like a private business, to exploit any profitable sideline, such as this. Therefore, why, one may ask—indeed, the hon. Gentleman did ask—should it be necessary to have this cumbrous procedure of an Act of Parliament? If it were entirely because of one Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster some years ago, I would not be unduly disturbed. But that is not the true answer.
The reason why more general enabling legislation which would enable the Minister, shall we say, by Order, to permit an extension of the activities of a nationalised undertaking, has not been introduced by a Conservative Government or by a Labour Government is the understandable fears of private industry about unfair competition. I think that we on both sides of the House would do better to realise that here is a genuine dilemma. Those of us on this side who, on the one hand, are opposed to the principle of nationalisation but, on the other, are determined that the existing nationalised industries should be profitable and a success have to face the difficulty that it is not easy for an undertaking set up by Act of Parliament suddenly to branch out on to a sideline which may not be within the terms of the Act. I merely state the dilemma without making any attempt to offer a solution. It is, however, a dilemma which we must recognise.
I should like to ask my right hon. Friend whether it would be possible either for the Ministry, or for him to ask the electricity undertaking to let the country have some more up-to-date figures concerning the financial position of nuclear power stations as a whole.


The mere passing of the Bill would, presumably, improve their financial outlook to a small extent because they will have another source of income. The most up-to-date information which we have concerning the financial position of these power stations is contained in, I think, Chapter 5 of the Herbert Committee's Report. Since then, the position has changed to a certain extent. There has been a considerable drop in the world price of uranium in addition to various other matters. Also, there are the very important possibilities under the Bill.
I ask my right hon. Friend whether we may be given some information in due course about the financial position, or the probable financial position, of nuclear power stations in the years ahead, because it has such an important bearing on our policy vis-à-vis the conventional types of power station.

4.24 p.m.

Sir Richard Glyn: I agree with what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) said on a number of points, but I cannot entirely agree with what he said on the question of safety, with which I shall deal in a moment, because I think that that is something which the House should regard in considering this matter.
I was interested to observe from the interesting speech of the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) that he did not in any way dissent from the principle of the Bill. It seemed clear that he did not oppose the passage of the Bill. He had a good deal to say about what happened during the Report stage of the Electricity Bill in 1957. I refreshed my memory by reading the debate which then took place, and, although I am sure that he is anxious to be extremely fair, I noticed that radioisotopes did not appear to have been considered at all.
The debate at that time, for what it is worth, seemed to be concerned with the manufacture and sale of plant and fittings. That appeared to be the point at issue. It may well be that, although they were beginning to be used in industry and research, radio-active isotopes had not at that stage reached the importance which they have now

reached. As far as I could see, they were not even referred to by either side of the House.

Mr. Lee: I am not saying that radioactive isotopes were mentioned. I am saying that had the original wording of that Bill been allowed to stand the power to manufacture would have been maintained, and the Bill which we are discussing now would not have been necessary.

Sir R. Glyn: As we have heard, that is slightly contentious. Several Amendments were before the House on that occasion, one of which was eventually accepted.
As I say, I think that at that time the question of radioisotopes was not considered at all. The limitations involved in that Amendment were, as the event showed, too tightly drawn, and I think that that must be accepted. The result is that at present the production of these important isotopes is restricted to those produced by the Atomic Energy Authority's research reactors which produce them only as a by-product. Whereas their production was adequate three and a half years ago, it is inadequate today. As I see it, that is the whole essence of the necessity for this Bill.
It is very encouraging to hear of the tremendous progress being made in our sales of isotopes overseas. During the last five years our exports have increased fourfold. I think that that is an important fact. Also, the fact that we are now a leading exporter is very important. I understand that last year we exported over 30,000 individual shipments of isotopes to over 60 countries. It is important to realise the way in which the export of and the demand for isotopes all over the world are increasing. Almost every other day a new use for them in industry or research is discovered. This is an extraordinarily interesting fact which could almost be described as a break-through in some cases, because the economies which the use of isotopes makes possible are very striking and amount to enormous sums even in an individual factory or plant.
Problems which were almost insoluble in the pre-isotope days can now be solved relatively cheaply and quickly by the use of isotopes. The position of isotopes might be compared with that of petrol


at the turn of the century. We know of certain uses for them, but other uses are only suspected and the full possibilities have not by any means been developed. Enormous economies which can be made in many spheres are being discovered and elaborated daily all over the world.
The demand for isotopes in the world is increasing enormously. At present, I understand, America produces more isotopes than this country, but it exports less because of very large internal demand. If the Bill is passed, as I think we all hope that it will be, we shall have a total potential altogether greater than that of America. This may be a factor of considerable importance.
It would be wrong to delay the House with a list of the potential uses, because they are extraordinarily comprehensive, but, for instance, in agriculture, in which I take an interest, they are being used in insecticides with tremendous success and experimentally to help with the storage of things like grain and potatoes. It is now possible to sterilise grain in such a way that it will keep, and there is no risk of attack by mildew or weevils. It can be sterilised so that it will keep much better than it will without such sterilisation. Radioisotopes are also used to stop potatoes sprouting, and these uses, while I admit that they are in the experimental stage, are very important.
Here again, factors of safety arise. We must never overlook the safety aspect of any of these developments, but that, perhaps, does not come within the scope of this Bill.
There are an enormous number of uses connected with medical research. Hospitals which are particularly engaged in research now wonder how they ever managed before isotopes were available to them. There are many uses for gamma radiology which enables one to do testings of castings and forgings in a way never before possible. Isotopes can sterilise many sorts of raw materials which, previously, could not be used because of the fear of known infection of one kind or another. The sterilisation of goats' hair which is infected with anthrax is only one example. This can now be completely overcome by the use of rays from cobalt 60 and similar isotopes, of which we exported very large

quantities last year to Australia for that purpose.
These uses are growing and the factory which is using cobalt 60 for the sterilisation of carpet materials is one of interest because it is the first of its kind and it is voted a success. I have no doubt that others will follow What is so interesting is that the half life of these isotopes is not indefinite and that, unquestionably, there will be repeat orders at intervals. It is for us to make sure that we get the repeat orders. We have competitors—France, and competitors from other places—and we must make sure that we get these orders.
I am sure that we would all agree that it is a very satisfactory position that we in Britain are leading the export field. We welcome the fact that the enormously increased production which the passage of the Bill will make possible will enable us, we hope, to get still further ahead. This is almost like a fairy story, because we do not very often get a chance of enormously increasing our production without a very large increase in expense and, what is so particularly attractive in this case is that we are able to adapt the two selected stations, Bradwell and Hinckley Point, so cheaply.
They will cost perhaps only about £250,000 and they will produce, among other things, I understand, a great deal of cobalt 60, to which I have referred, and other isotopes in great demand. I have seen an estimate that the profit from this new production may amount to about £500,000 a year and that profit—if that is the correct figure—for an expenditure of £250,000 capital cost is really almost too good to be true.
I wonder whether we can be given a little further information on the methods to be used for finishing and marketing these isotopes, because I understand that at present the Atomic Energy Authority takes over the isotopes and finishes them with a view to marketing and transporting them. I presume that that will still be done, and that they will be taken over from the Board by the Authority to be finished with a view to marketing. I imagine that will be the case and I suppose, from what has been said, that no extra finance will be involved in this part of the transaction. I am glad to see that there is nothing in the Bill which absolutely precludes the job of finishing


and marketing being handed over to a private firm or firms should that later become desirable.
It is also important to see that the production of these isotopes will not reduce the Board's capacity for generating electricity. I understand that it will be done by the neutrons which exist already in good supply, and that it will be only a matter of putting the target material into the reactors to be bombarded by them and that this will not in any way affect the production of electricity which is, of course, the primary task.
The question of safety is a consideration which ought to be borne in mind. I am particularly concerned with a point of safety to which no reference has yet been made. We have not only to think of the workers in the industry who, in my opinion, are fairly well-informed already and working under appropriate conditions, so far as I know; but we have to consider the question of the transport of the very large number of isotopes which will be delivered by post and other ways, both in this country and other parts.
Although that is perhaps not a direct responsibility of my right hon. Friend, I should like to draw his attention to the fact that there are at present certain gaps in the existing regulations. It may be that he can bring his influence to bear to get these gaps closed before the greatly increased production which the Bill will make possible leads to an equal increase in the number of packages being despatched by one means or another, each of which is, of course, a potential danger if the correct regulations are not observed.
As I understand, the International Atomic Agency, at Vienna, has not yet made final recommendations on this matter and it may well be that we shall have to wait for them, but I hope that it will not be a question of waiting too long, because my information is that the G.P.O. regulations concerning postal packets are under review, that the Ministry of Transport regulations under the Radioactive Substances Act, 1948, are not yet finally approved, and that the Ministry of Transport regulations for ports and harbours are still in the course of preparation. As larger quantities of isotopes are now being sent

by sea, it seems to me that all these regulations should be in working order before the tremendously increased flow of isotopes which must result from the passing of the Bill—not perhaps for twelve months or so, but which will eventually result. I would welcome some assurance from my right hon. Friend on this matter.
Some of these isotopes are packed in extremely small packages and there is the possible risk of someone inadvertently pocketing one and perhaps carrying it about for some time. This may involve a very considerable danger. Unless these packages are properly marked in such a way that they cannot possibly be mistaken, and unless there are suitable regulations and they are observed, there is a real danger here, which, I think, we should consider.
There is one final point which is of some importance. I would welcome an assurance from my right hon. Friend as to his plan for raising the necessary finance. I know that it is only the small sum of £250,000, but there is a principle involved. I know that the Finance Act, 1956, permits the Exchequer to make advances for purposes of this kind and I think that it is also possible for my right hon. Friend to proceed under Section 17 of the Electricity Act, 1957, by the issue of stock. I do not know whether he is in a position tonight to indicate which course he will take, but I hope that the latter procedure will be used because in this case there is a hope that the total cost may be returned within a relatively short time.
I believe that wherever it is possible nationalised industries should raise funds by the issue of stock as opposed to Exchequer advances and I think that this particularly applies where there is a very small amount at stake. I see no difficulty in raising it and although it is a small sum I do not think that there is any justification for going to the Exchequer if it is possible to raise the funds by the issue of stock. I hope that my right hon. Friend will say something on this point.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. Alan Brown: I do not intend to oppose the Bill, nor is it my desire to encroach upon the valuable time of hon. Members for more than a


few moments. I feel myself called upon, however, to make certain observations coupled with a plea concerning safety precautions. My hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) was quite right to dwell upon such important matters.
We are informed that the purpose of the Bill is to empower the Central Electricity Generating Board to use the substantial capacity that will be available in the reactors of its nuclear power stations to produce radioisotopes and, further, to enable the Board to sell such radioactive materials. It would, therefore, follow, as I deduce the position, that the Board will be able to manufacture radioactive material at any of its generating stations and that it can sell such radioactive material to persons desiring to purchase it.
No one can other than wholeheartedly support the concept that the products of nuclear energy should be used for medical, biological and industrial purposes, as the Minister has explained. Indeed, it is only by virtue of such application to peaceful purposes that mankind can benefit from nuclear energy. I do not, however, exaggerate when I say that the public generally are extremely fearful of the possibilities of accidents occurring in the reactors of nuclear power stations.
Hon. Members will recall that such an accident occurred to No. 1 reactor at the Windscale atomic plant in 1957. On 29th October, 1957, the former hon. Member for Clitheroe, Mr. Fort, asked the Prime Minister:
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that a similar accident could not occur in the types of reactor being built at Calder Hall and built for the electricity authorities as happened at the Windscale plant?
The Prime Minister replied:
I think that, broadly speaking, that is the case."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th October, 1957; Vol. 575, c. 35.]
I submit that that reply by the Prime Minister fell a long way short of confirming that such an accident could not occur in the reactors being built for the electricity authorities.
Therefore, I would welcome an assurance from the Minister that these reactors will not be permitted at generating stations such as the Battersea Power Station and other generating stations

which are sited in densely populated conurbations. Secondly, radioactive isotopes and other radioactive substances constitute, as we are all aware, a grave danger to health and, indeed, to life. As a chemist, I venture the opinion that radioactive materials can be infinitely more dangerous to the public than are 90 per cent. of the substances appearing on our list of poisons, in all schedules. A rigid control on the sale of these substances is already in force by law.
I would, therefore, also welcome an assurance from the Minister that in the interests of public safety, similar control on the sale of these radioactive materials is envisaged by the Government.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. A. Brown) indicated that these radioactive substances are dangerous. It is correct to say that radium may have a half-life of something like 1,620 years, but there are other radioisotopes which have a very short half-life, such as certain isotopes of gold and yttrium 90, which has a half-life of only 2·7 days. Therefore, when food is being dealt with, it has to be borne in mind that radioisotopes with a short life are used and that when it comes to the question of human consumption, the radiation content is negligible.
There is one case which I should mention, because the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) indicated that we were deprived of these powers by the 1957 Act. Possibly, one of the explanations may have been that the Atomic Energy Authority was responsible for the production of isotopes in this country. Bepo, Dido and Pluto are the reactors at Harwell and the others are at Chapel Cross and Calder Hall. It was only at a later date that it became necessary to have further production of radioisotopes. Therefore, it is necessary to come to the House of Commons to ask for additional powers. It does not follow that something which is appropriate now was necessarily appropriate in those days. One can examine the situation in this way and say that the Radio Chemical Centre has made considerable progress. Its 1949 deliveries figure of 3,500 has shot up considerably in ten years to 35,000.
One of the points which is a matter of anxiety to us all, however, is why progress has not been greater. In the home market, 15 per cent. of production goes to the industrial sector, 35 per cent. to research and 50 per cent. for medical purposes. It may be that industry has feared to use radioisotopes or has been unaware of their value. Looking ahead, however, especially when one realises the utility of radioisotopes in both the West German and the American market, one feels that greater use should be made of them here.
This is a paradoxical situation. We are the world's leading exporter of radioisotopes. We have a quite considerable lead and yet, relatively speaking, industry in this country is a comparatively small user of them. Obviously, something must be wrong. From time to time, trends of development apparent in the United States are, after a number of years, generally adopted in the United Kingdom. It is a great pity that we have not picked up the lesson of the use of radioisotopes a little earlier.
There is another way of looking at the question. The saving to industry by the use of radioisotopes has been evaluated at approximately £3½ million to £7½ million a year. That is an extremely low level. If, however, all the accepted uses of these radioisotopes were to be implemented, the saving could be as high as £14 million per annum, and it has been evaluated that within the next 10 to 15 years the value of the saving to industry could be as much as £70 million. To make an immediate comparison with the United States is difficult. However, in 1956 the saving to American industry amounted to 400 million dollars, a large part of which was utilised in oil-well stimulation, but at least 220 million dollars were accounted for by industrial purposes. That would be equivalent roughly to about £70 million, which makes an unfavourable comparison on our side, namely a saving of £3½ million, in this country.
Here we have before us a tool of industry which could be of great value in abating costs and in finding the shortest way to do a job. It could be useful in processing and in a number of ways, which I shall endeavour to indicate.

We also have in almost embryonic form a new export industry which will continue to grow.
It may be of interest to the House if I repeat the figures for 1957 successively to 1960. The value of production has been £541,000, £650,000, £800,000 and £1,100,000. The export figures for those years have risen in this way: £302,960, £390,000, £480,000 and £660,000. We can, therefore, say that in the very short compass of years between 1957 and 1960 our exports have doubled, going primarily, of course, to the United States, Canada, West Germany and Sweden.
All I want to do on this occasion is to point out the desirability of going ahead with this proposal. The Central Electricity Generating Board will shortly make the adaptations which we have been told about by my right hon. Friend and which will cost only £100,000 per station, and we have also learned from my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn), that the profitability range is likely to be between £500,000 and £750,000 which is an exceedingly good profit from this type of development. We have our competitors overseas. All the time we are looking ahead for a profitable investment in our export trade. Here is one.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North, also indicated that isotope production is of value in agriculture, for example in fighting weevils in grain. It can also assist in altering the mutations of nature and it is possible to breed a high-yielding barley. It is possible to turn out a wheat which is rust-resistant and will have a shorter straw. It is also possible to produce oats which have a special resistance to disease. My hon. Friend also mentioned the establishment which has been set up in Australia for treating goat's hair used in the manufacture of carpets. In the process carried out at present, formaldehyde and steam are used after the bales are taken apart. In using the new method it is unnecessary to break the bales. The radiation will go straight through them. The bales can be dealt with in situ and that means that they are not exposed to re-infection from dust. One of these facilities is available in the United Kingdom and the other in Australia.
The uses of isotopes are extraordinary. For example, antibiotics and penicillin


have to be sterilised "cold". By the use of isotopes this can be done and they can be sterilised in packages which are already sealed up. This is of great value. An example of industrial use is the examination of welds in pressure vessels by utilising cobalt 60, caesium 137 and a number of other isotopes of great value. Isotopes can be used instead of X-rays to examine spots which are otherwise inaccessible. Furthermore, the isotope equipment does not have to be connected to electrical leads. Many other uses could be enumerated, but it is sufficient for the moment to point out that on this occasion the Central Electricity Generating Board is being given powers to produce isotopes.
The Board will be able to radiate materials in its own reactors. It will not be able to finish them. The processing will continue to be done by the Atomic Energy Authority and it is possible that it can be done outside the Authority. Greater use should be made of isotopes in British industry so that it will approximate the utilisation in Germany and the United States.

Mr. A. P. Costain: Does my hon. Friend agree that isotopes are of great value in speeding up the installation, examination and repair of oil pipelines?

Mr. Skeet: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that use. If engineers are trying to find a blockage in a pipeline system they send a go-devil through the pipe. The only way of determining its exact whereabouts is by the use of a radioisotope. If different grades of petroleum are sent through a pipeline one can determine by the use of radioisotopes when the new grade is coming in, following on the tail of the other. It is essential that we should keep ahead and utilise these aids to industry to the full. The petroleum industry is one of the leading industrial users but that does not mean to say that other industries should not cash in on this development.
One industrial use of isotopes is in the measuring of the thickness of paper, plastic materials or printed fabrics. Gamma rays are capable of penetrating through several inches of steel. If isotopes are used the thickness and quality of the material can be automatically

adjusted in the course of manufacture. I could tabulate a large number of other examples of the use of isotopes which I have been able to assemble in the course of trying to take an intelligent interest in the subject of this debate. The uses fall into three categories. The first is agricultural. The farmer can utilise isotopes to the fullest advantage. Secondly, there is the industrial side which is growing apace, and finally there is the medical side.
These new tools are available to British industry. Is industry slow in taking up these advantages? Are industrialists allowing the Americans to creep ahead? If so, is this the result of basic indolence on our part, or is it because we do not appreciate their value? We are authorising the Central Electricity Generating Board to produce isotopes. We can sell them overseas almost as fast as we produce them. One of the greatest advantages to us would be to sell them in the home market as well to increase our efficiency and reduce our basic costs.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. John Taylor: I do not wish to detain the House for more than a few minutes because the last thing that I would want to do would be to retard the progress of this excellent extension of public ownership. It occurred to me, however, on reading the Bill, that the Clause which deals with its scope confines its operations to England and Wales. I appreciate the legal necessity for this because the operations of the Central Electricity Generating Board are, I believe, confined to England and Wales and, therefore, it would be impossible in its present form to extend the scope of the Bill to Scotland or Northern Ireland.
I am anxious to know whether the fact that the scope of the Bill is confined to England and Wales precludes any enterprise on the part of the Electricity Boards in Scotland in extending their activities to the production of isotopes for sale. I should be glad to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power whether it is possible that a further Measure will be brought in to enable both the South of Scotland and North of Scotland Electricity Boards to engage in these activities if it is thought fit for them to do so.

4.59 p.m.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: I welcome the Bill and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power on the way in which it has been introduced. He has tackled this matter on the right lines. In a science of this kind it is extremely difficult to look very far ahead. One must take matters step by step.
Reference has been made to marketing. I should like to have an assurance from the Government that private industry is being brought into the picture with the Central Electricity Generating Board and that they are co-operating. I believe that if the Board works closely with private industry good results may well be achieved in the export market.
The point made by my hon. Friend about the use of radioisotopes in industry is a very important one. Clearly, we are lagging behind in this country compared with others. I wonder whether sufficient information reaches industry through the various channels. That ought to be looked into. Great Britain lives by its brains, and this is typical of what the country has achieved in the last century. I should like an assurance from my hon. Friend about the situation in regard to atomic power stations and, more important, research stations. I have heard it said that while research stations are doing a wonderful and tremendous job in bringing off great achievements, they are so insular in their outlook that they are losing touch with the outside world, as it were. I wonder whether there is a sufficient influx of new knowledge and brains into the research establishments. That is very important, and I hope that my hon. Friend will give us some assurance about it.
This development represents an enormous market. As I see it, Britain is losing exports to some extent in textiles which she has had for generations, and we are losing exports in the way of ships. We have now to export pharmaceutical products, transistors, electronics, and computers and other things which are more in line with isotopes. This is a typical example of what Britain is receiving as a result of its technical and university education effort, where we probably lead the world. I am prepared to say that a boy coming out of a technical college in

Britain is probably two years ahead of his counterpart in the United States. Unless we make full use of this knowledge in our own industry, we shall surely lose ground. Putting it out into private industry will help our export trade.
The question of safety has been mentioned. There is always an element of risk, but I am satisfied that every precaution is taken and will be taken. I think that we can well leave this matter in the hands of the Government and the authorities concerned.
I wish my right hon. Friend and the industry concerned in this great enterprise well. We may well see further legislation brought before the House with the aim of enabling our country to go ahead in this important field.

5.2 p.m.

Mr. Airey Neave: I regret that I have missed a large part of this most interesting debate, but I congratulate my right hon. Friend upon the Bill, which, I think, is supported by all hon. Members. It is obviously a very wise extension of the Board's powers that it should be able to produce radioactive material in reactors in commercial nuclear power stations and to sell it.
I join with what my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) said about the need to promote knowledge about the industrial importance of radioactive isotopes. He was quite right in what he said. If hon. Members will study the Report of the Atomic Energy Authority for 1959–60 in that connection, they will see, in paragraphs 278 and 279, that the Authority has given progressively increasing attention to promoting the use of radioactive isotopes in industrial and other activities and has collaborated with the D.S.I.R. on the subject.
I am not satisfied that sufficient is known about the very valuable work that is being done in this connection. I have very considerable constituency interests in the matter. Not only is Harwell in my constituency, but so, also, is the Wantage Research Centre and Radioisotope School. I should like to congratulate all those who have done such excellent work in the development of radioisotopes from Harwell and Wantage and have made us the main exporting


country. But I do not think that enough is known about their work.
There are some excellent catalogues which are mentioned in the Authority's Report for 1959–60. I should like my right hon. Friend and his Ministry, in collaboration with the Atomic Energy Authority, to ensure that the results of any reseach by the Central Electricity Generating Board, under this Bill, and the Atomic Energy Authority are more widely known throughout industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Skeet) has given us such an excellent—I will not say "lecture"—exposition of the use of radioisotopes industrially, medically and agriculturally that I could not seek to emulate it, but I can say that some of the experiments into the measurement of thicknesses—thicknesses of 0·010 cm. are being measured at the moment at the Wantage Research laboratory—are bound to have enormous applications in industry.
There is also the sterilisation of certain materials in medical use and for industrial products. At Wantage, which has gradually developed from a fairly small establishment, very large sources of gamma radiation are now being used for the sterilisation of medical equipment. My hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East mentioned the development of pipelines. That is another important aspect. Pipelines are only in their infancy in this country.
We have recently been considering a Bill—the Esso Petroleum Company Bill—for the development of a very important pipeline to London Airport. The thicknesses of the pipes are measured with the aid of radioisotopes in order to prevent leaks. Being concerned in an industry which has a great deal to do with welding, I know how very important that is. I hope that wide publicity will be given among manufacturers to the work of the Wantage Research Laboratory. The very fact that the Central Electricity Generating Board is to do some work in the sense of producing and selling isotopes and also, I suppose, conducting research will also be of enormous value.
The Radio-Chemical Centre at Amersham should be mentioned in this connection, though it is perhaps not strictly within the Bill, which relates

only to the Board. However, the fact that the Bill allows the Board to produce radioactive materials for the purposes of sale is relevant to work which is being done in that sphere of research in the same direction. I note that there was a 25 per cent. increase last year in the production of isotopes for civil purposes. I have several times called attention to these achievements in the past, and I am very glad to see that progress that is being made and that, from Amersham, there were 35,000 deliveries to the medical services alone and 15 per cent. of all deliveries went to industry last year.
While we all, I hope, approve of the provisions in the Bill which will enable the Board to carry out this work the most important point which emerges is that more widespread knowledge is required of the very valuable functions that isotopes can perform in improving our industrial products.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Peart: I was glad, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) caught your eye. He is, after all, in a sense, Mr. Atom, because in his constituency, as he has described, we have Harwell and Wantage—in other words, it is the great centre of atomic research. Therefore, it is as well that he should praise the Bill, and I am very glad that he intervened.
There is a point which I wish to clear up. It has been raised by more than one hon. Member. It was first raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett), who sought to argue with one of my hon. Friends about the necessity for the Bill. The hon. and gallant Member put forward the view that public authorities—in this case, the Board—dealing the production of electricity were restricted even under a Labour Government. I regret that the hon. and gallant Member is not present at the moment. I have very quickly checked the Electricity Act, 1947, myself. Section 2 lays down the additional functions of electricity boards. Subsection (3) says that:
The Central Authority shall have power (a) to manufacture electrical plant and electrical fittings; (b) to sell, hire or otherwise supply electrical plant and electrical fittings … and


(c) to carry on all such other activities as it may appear to the Authority to be requisite, advantageous, or convenient for them to carry on for or in connection with the performance of their duties under the foregoing section
and so on.
I may be wrong, but I would have thought that the original Act, which was passed by a Labour Government and which nationalised electricity undertakings, would in no way have restricted the Board from doing what it is now going to do. I think the history is as stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee). In Clause 1 of the Bill the Minister is, in fact, seeking to amend Section 2 (7) of the 1957 Act.
I agree with the Minister here. I do not think that there is any point in going in too much detail into the controversies over public ownership and whether boards should be restricted or not in certain spheres of special interest to themselves. However, I think that we should have it on record that hon. and right hon. Members on this side of the House never intended that a public authority should be restricted if it thought fit to engage in certain processes which would be advantageous to it.
We are really discussing a very important Bill which seeks to give a publicly-owned board power not only to manufacture isotopes, because it manufactures them already, but power to sell those isotopes. I am quite certain that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree with that. I am rather interested in the political argument. It is extremely pleasant to hear hon. Members opposite praising the work of a public body. The hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East said that hon. Members on his side of the House had no love for nationalised industries.
It is rather remarkable that today the pressure of events has forced every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate to defend the Atomic Energy Authority and all its work, and, indeed, also the publicly-owned and nationalised generating authority, the Central Electricity Generating Board. While we welcome the conversion of hon. Members opposite, I hope that they will not be doctrinaire any more and that in their election addresses they will defend public ownership.

Sir A. V. Harvey: I am rather disappointed to see so few hon. Members on the benches opposite today. The legislation was introduced a few years ago and I think that the hon. Gentleman should be quite fair about this matter. We on this side of the House are always ready to give praise where praise is due, but I would point out that over the last fifteen years the losses have been so disastrous that it has been very difficult to give praise. We are always perfectly willing to do so when we can.

Mr. Peart: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is too little interest in this matter on both sides of the House and that both sides must accept responsibility. However, I think the hon. Gentleman must accept the fact that hon. Members opposite, and their party generally, have campaigned in the House and in the country against public ownership.
All I am saying is that we are today discussing in detail the successful working of two publicly-owned bodies. I am merely referring to what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East, one of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues, who stated that hon. Members opposite have no love for nationalised industries. The hon. and gallant Gentleman injected that point into the debate. I am merely taking it up. All I am saying is that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey), the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Skeet) and other hon. Members opposite have praised public ownership. I made a note to the effect that I welcome to these debates an approach of the kind that has been made this evening. I have never been doctrinaire on the subject.

Sir A. V. Harvey: I think that the hon. Gentleman is making awfully heavy weather of the matter. If he had been here more often he would have heard me make a speech a few months ago praising B.E.A., but I did not praise British Railways or B.O.A.C.

Mr. Peart: Surely, it is not making heavy weather of the matter to say that it is pleasant to have a debate about two publicly-owned bodies which are doing successful work. All I am saying is that it is refreshing that hon. Members like the hon. Member for Macclesfield should not be doctrinaire about it.

Mr. Skeet: We are trying to make the Board commercially successful.

Mr. Peart: Of course we are, but the hon. Member's main arguments, strange to say, were directed against private enterprise, which is not catching up with the scientific research and effort being carried out by the Atomic Energy Authority.

Mr. Skeet: I indicated that we might follow the lead of the United States in making more isotopes available to industry.

Mr. Peart: We are having a very pleasant evening, but I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that in his speech he stressed that private industry had not caught up with the nationalised boards. I thought that that was the theme of his speech. I am not complaining, because I think that he made a very valid point. He said that we had produced the isotopes. Here is an amending Measure to enable another public body to produce more.

Mr. Skeet: I said that we should sell more to industry and that industry must expand the potential use of isotopes. The Atomic Energy Authority is largely a producer. To utilise fundamental research is something rather different.

Mr. Peart: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will read his speech. His case was that private industry had not caught up with events. We want a more intelligent approach by management etc. in the use of new techniques. From the point of view of more production, the production of the Atomic Energy Authority in no way lags behind that of Western Germany and the United States. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman looks at the position in Western Germany he will find that to be so. Western Germany has not gone into the field to the same extent that we have. Although the United States market is a very large one from the domestic point of view, relative to our own resources we lead the world if we consider our effort in relation to our home production and use and also the position of our exports.
I also welcome the making available of more capital to the value of £250,000. I want to ask the Minister some questions and I hope that he will be able to answer the point raised by the hon.

Member for Dorset, North (Sir R. Glyn) concerning how this operation can be financed. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give us some details. I have made a note about my own approach to this matter, but I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will pinpoint what was said by the hon. Member for Dorset, North.
I think that the Bill is an unusual one. The Minister has explained it very carefully, and he need not apologise for acting the schoolmaster this afternoon. Technically, this is a very difficult subject, and perhaps that may explain why many hon. Members are reluctant to participate in the debate. It is a difficult subject and it is not easy even for an hon. Member with a classical education to understand the intricacies of science. I accept that.
Here we have a public authority participating in an activity which was formerly the prerogative of another public authority. I think that we know the reasons for that. Obviously, as the Minister has said, we have developed our nuclear power programme. The programme has increased. We have places like Bradwell and Hinckley, and inevitably there will be resources there for the production of isotopes. Economic and scientific events have really forced us to keep pace. Here we are bringing our legislation up to date in order to give effect to what would normally happen as we develop our nulear power programme.
We on this side of the House, of course, support it strongly. I, like other hon. Members have done today, pay a great tribute to the work of the Atomic Energy Authority in the field of isotopes. I think it has been one of the most successful parts of its work. We know that the work of the isotopes division of the Atomic Energy Authority embraces not only the production of isotopes, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Willesden, East but also considerable research into new methods of production.
I shall not go into the details about radioactive isotopes because they have been mentioned by many hon. Members and by the Minister, too, but radioactive isotopes are used in research and in agriculture and medicine and form a very


large part of the work of the isotopes division at Harwell and at Wantage mentioned by the hon. Member for Abingdon. Reactors now have become famous, like Bepo and Dido, and we all pay a tribute to what has been done, but here we come to another phase.
I said earlier that I hoped that hon. Members would not be doctrinal, and this is a very real argument because when last year we discussed a very important Bill, which has a bearing on some of the problems that have been raised today—I am thinking of safety—the Nuclear Installations (Licensing and Insurance) Bill, which is now an Act, we had this main argument whether we should approach the private ownership of atomic energy and the production and use of isotopes and so on. There was the question of public ownership versus private industry. I myself raised this and I make no apology for repeating it today.
I was suspicious that the Government here in our own country were going to follow the path of the United States of America. In America, as hon. Members know, there is a Commission very similar to our own Authority, a Commission which operates under an American Act of 1954, but that Act declares in principle that the aim of the United States is to put more responsibility on private industry. I am not against that.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Hear, hear.

Mr. Skeet: Hear, hear.

Mr. Peart: Certainly. However, in order to do that it sought also to see a diminution in State responsibility. I hope that hon. Members will not cheer that.
I want to see responsibility on both sides, and I was glad that we were able to extract then from the Minister, who was responsible for site installations, safety, the production of fuel elements, radioisotopes, their transport, and so on, an assurance that the Government would not be doctrinaire and would in no way weaken the work of a public body. So I am very glad to see that today the Government are amending the Electricity Act, 1957, and that although we are going to have an increase in the production of radioactive isotopes, although

we are going beyond the work of the Atomic Energy Authority, which has been doing the work up to now, we shall still have the main production in the hands of the public authority, and I compliment the Government today on not being doctrinaire. In that sense they have our support.
It must, after all, be a partnership. I myself only last week visited the research establishment at Hawker Siddeley who have a very fine reactor, the Jason, making a very valuable contribution. I also had the privilege in that same week of examining some of the atomic energy research conducted by G.E.C. at Erith. I am in no way doctrinaire, and I welcome what has been done, and, indeed, private industry, for example through Hawker Siddeley, is doing work for the Atomic Energy Authority. This association will continue with the Central Electricity Generating Board.
However, I should still like to ask certain questions and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will reply. I wish to know what will be the relationship between the Atomic Energy Authority and the Central Electricity Generating Board, and what the legal arrangements will be. I know there has always been close co-operation. Obviously, much of the work of the Authority has really been work for the Central Electricity Generating Board. What, however, really is the legal position now? The Authority has always been virtually the executive agent of the Government.
Let us look at the Atomic Energy Authority Act, 1954. Under Section 2, dealing with the functions of the Authority, the Authority has virtually a monopoly. Will that be changed? Who has the full legal obligations for the production of atomic energy? Section 2 (2) of that Act states:
Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Authority shall . . have power …

(a) to produce, use and dispose of atomic energy and carry out research into any matters connected therewith;
(b) to manufacture or otherwise produce, buy or otherwise acquire, store and transport any articles which in the opinion of the Authority are, or are likely to be, required for or in connection with the production or use of atomic energy or such research as aforesaid, and to dispose of any articles manufactured, produced, bought or acquired by them".



Then comes paragraph (c) which is very relevant:
to manufacture or otherwise produce, buy or otherwise acquire, treat, store, transport and dispose of any radioactive substances".
Subsection (2, e) says:
to make arrangements with universities and other institutions or persons for the conduct of research into matters connected with atomic energy or radioactive substances
and so on. Does that still apply? Will the Board's installations now come under that Section 2? Will they be covered by subsection (2, b, c, e)?
I should like to know, because I think this is important, because we had, again, a very involved argument about responsibilities when the Nuclear Installations (Licensing and Insurance) Bill went through the House last year. Will standards of isotopes be the responsibility of the Authority still? I understand that in 1954 the Authority had an arrangement with the National Physical Laboratory whereby there was virtually a form of agreement to accept standards of isotopes as laid down by the Laboratory. Does that sort of work still go on? Will the Authority still have supervisory powers or administrative powers or functions over the work of the district boards and the Central Electricity Generating Board itself?
Will there be any duplication of the work? While I agree with the hon. Member for Willesden, East that it is important that we should have a great effort here in the production of more isotopes, which we need for industry, agriculture, and medicine, I would ask whether there will be duplication of the work of the Authority. It is a very real problem, because we cannot afford to waste our scientific and technical staff. That is a view which has been expressed by many hon. Members in many debates over and over again. The hon. Member for Macclesfield has paid tribute to what our scientists and technicians have done in nuclear work. He has spoken of their quality, he has said their work is second to none, and that we lead the world in the peaceful use of atomic energy. We cannot afford to waste our efforts. Can I have an assurance, therefore, from the Parliamentary Secretary that there will be no waste of effort here?
After all, we are giving the Board £250,000. The hon. Member mentioned

that £100,000–I believe that was the figure—would be spent at Bradwell and another £100,000 at Hinckley. At these places, there will have to be special additions to the plants concerned and also specialised staff to look after the plants. Are the Government satisfied that the staff is available and that it can be supplied by the Board itself? Will there be duplication? This is important.
Again, I stress that there must be a partnership between the Generating Board, the Authority and private industry. We must have efficient and more effective production of radioactive isotopes. I ask bluntly: will this Bill achieve it? It is important that we should develop this industry. The chairman of the Authority, Sir Roger Makins, spoke at the fourth general conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna on 23rd September and he had this to say:
First—there is a great scope for expanding the use of radio-isotopes in industry, agriculture and medicine. A recent survey in the United Kingdom showed that British industry in 1958 was saving £3½ millions a year as a result of the use of radio-isotopes, but that it could have been saving four times that amount by the use of techniques which were already practicable.
That is a very important statement from one of the leaders in this industry in our country. Sir Roger went on to say that a similar conclusion would, no doubt, be reached in other countries, including West Germany, France and even the United States.
I am glad that part of the work of Britain will be to help other countries to improve their production and use of radioactive isotopes. Indeed, in his speech at the International Agency, Sir Roger also revealed that Britain had assisted in the promotion of radioisotope technology by offering the Agency in 1958 six free places for Agency-sponsored research workers in this country. I understand that five of those scholarships were taken, and that the Authority is again offering six more research scholarships for scientists and technicians from overseas who can thus develop their own techniques and knowledge of the use of isotopes.
When discussing this little Bill, let us remember that this work which has been mentioned by so many hon. Members has a great bearing not only on our home


industry but also on our international relations. Britain is second to none in this sector. Relative to our atomic energy resources, we have given more help to Europe and to the world than has any other country. In this, I am not thinking of physical resources alone but also of technical skill and ability.
The presence of the hon. Member for Southgate (Sir B. Baxter) reminds me that when I was in Canada recently and speaking about this matter, I was asked by a Canadian journalist about Britain's work and I said that Britain could lead the world in the use of atomic energy, as in the use of radioisotopes and other branches, and I reminded him of our new power reactor in Japan. I said that Britain had nothing to apologise for but something to shout about from the housetops. That is why I am so glad that hon. Members who are normally critical of public ownership should praise what has been achieved in a mainly publicly-owned atomic energy industry.
I could go on dealing with details. Exports have been mentioned by many hon. Members. I have with me the figures quoted in the Annual Report, which have been given by the right hon. Gentleman. Our exports of isotopes, according to that Report, which covered the period 1st April, 1959, to 31st March, 1960, increased by 25 per cent. over the previous year. As has already been said today, 60 per cent. of the isotopes were exported. We want this record to be maintained. That is why we have this Bill. Obviously there will be many fission products arising from the development of atomic reactors and power plants, and more and more radioactive substances will be created. There will also be more research.
We sometimes forget, in considering radioactive isotopes and their uses, that alongside this new and growing industry there is another, which is related to it, for producing instruments. Instrumentation in atomic energy is important. The control and handling of radioactive substances enable people not only to develop new processes and new materials but also show how to handle those processes and materials.
There has grown up in this country a very important and valuable instrument industry, which, in a sense, has been inspired by the main nuclear energy programme and by what has been done for the production of isotopes. For example, many countries use geological survey meters from this country. Many of our gauges for measuring are used abroad.
I understand that in Norway at one period British gauges were used in practically every paper mill. There are other examples of our instruments being used for measuring handling materials. Our peaceful atomic energy programme is creating another valuable export where British quality products can be second to none.
We support this Bill and nowhere oppose it. Indeed, we welcome it. We think that it is a good thing that the Central Electricity Generating Board should have this power and that the 1957 Act should be amended. It is rather refreshing to have a bit of unity on atoms for peace instead of disunity on atoms for war

5.38 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. J. C. George): This has been an extremely useful and happy debate, and I am sure that the Central Electricity Generating Board will be greatly encouraged by what has been said on both sides of the House.
I begin by dealing with Scotland, and I must remove at once the doubts in the mind of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor). Scotland and Northern Ireland are expressly excluded from the Bill, not because the Government wish to handicap them but because the nationalisation Act for electricity does not relate to Northern Ireland, Though it applies to Scotland, the original Statute which nationalised the industry remains there unimpaired by the amendments in the 1957 Act. The power is already provided, and there needs to be no alteration.
In a way, that answers what was said by the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee). He said that the amending legislation in 1957 had led to the need to introduce the Bill. That is quite right and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral


Hughes Hallett) was wrong to assume that the Bill would still have been needed if that amendment had not taken place. However, at that time no one envisaged the production of isotopes on this scale and, now that the industry is expanding rapidly, it is only right that we should seek to encourage the Generating Board to play its part in the expansion.
The hon. Member for Newton enjoyed himself jobbing backwards to the Committee stage of the 1957 Measure, but he was generous in his welcome to the Bill. He confined himself largely to questions of safety, which is clearly one of the dominating factors in the minds of the Generating Board and everyone concerned with nuclear generation or the use of isotopes derived from nuclear generation. I assure the hon. Member that arrangements for safety are a continuing interest of my right hon. Friend who has a Nuclear Inspectorate watching over the operation of the Nuclear Installations (Licensing and Insurance) Act, 1959, which governs safety in nuclear stations. Regulations have been and can be made as practice develops and experience grows. The matter is constantly under review by my right hon. Friend, whose staff keep him informed of any changes which it is thought should be made. These are then discussed with the industry so that regulations can be brought forward.
Anxiety has been expressed about safety, and the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. A. Brown) spoke of the general safety of the public and the public's alarm about nuclear stations in densely populated areas. The Government's policy has been clearly seen to be to keep nuclear power stations away from densely populated areas—at least, in this stage of their development. There is more than one reason for that. The stations require certain services which are not regularly and readily obtainable in densely built-up areas—vast quantities of water, for instance. To some extent, also, the stations are sited in areas where other fuels are not available. There are several compelling reasons why they are sited where they are, and it is not the intention at the moment to bring huge nuclear power stations into densely populated areas, so that I can relieve the hon. Member's anxiety on that score.
Much has been rightly said about the advance of this industry. Everyone has watched with interest and admiration the expansion of the production of isotopes, not only by the scientific work of the Atomic Energy Authority at Harwell, where they have been and will be produced until the Bill becomes law, but also by the work done at Amersham. Several hon. Members have commented on expansion at home and abroad. The products of Amersham are used in 60 different countries, which is a compliment not only to the salesmanship of the Authority, but to its ability to pack these dangerous materials and arrange for their special transport, not only at home, but all over the world.
Any doubts about the efficiency or safety of transport should be considered in the light of what has already been done. Isotopes have been and are being transported all over the world. One may sit in an aeroplane which may have in special compartments in its wingtips a consignment of isotopes to be taken across the North Atlantic in one day, or to Australia or Japan in two days. The method of transport has had very close study, but continuous study is nevertheless being made of dangers which may be encountered in transport. As with all safety matters, there is never any let-up in the study of safe transport.
My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey), my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) and my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Skeet) rather chided the United Kingdom industry for not using present isotope techniques to the full, and they quoted, as did the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), the speech of Sir Roger Makins. That speech, which was made in Vienna, indicated that in Sir Roger's view savings made in British industry by the use of isotopes were four times less than they could have been at the time he made his speech.
Nevertheless, 700 industrial firms in this country use isotopes and their use is spreading throughout British industry. Whether British industry has been laggard in grasping the new opportunities provided by our scientists, I do not know; but every effort is made by the Amersham Radio-Chemical Centre to


acquaint British industry with what can be provided—it is done in a beautifully produced catalogue which is circulated throughout the country—and the Atomic Energy Authority is ready and willing to give advice to industry. I am sure that the industrialists of Britain will not be laggard in taking up the advantages which my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn) pointed out might bring about huge economies. There are immense possibilities in the application of isotopes to industry and I am certain that that knowledge is growing and that the use of isotopes in British industry will expand as we expand their production.
A happier feature of the use of isotopes was not mentioned—medicine, where great benefits are being conferred. In fact, 100,000 patients annually are treated by radiotherapy in the United Kingdom. The healing work which can come from isotopes can be of great benefit to mankind and, as has been said, this country is willing to extend its knowledge to serve our brethren in Europe or in any other part of the world for the general benefit of mankind.
The hon. Member for Workington asked me to deal specifically with a question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North, who asked how these proposals were to be financed. The sums involved are not large. As the hon. Member for Workington said, this is a little Bill. It does not make any significant changes and it does not involve any large financial commitments. The sum involved may be £200,000, or £250,000. My hon. Friend suggested that the proposal should be financed by the issue of stock, but I think that on reflection, comparing the smallness of that sum with the cost of the two stations at about £100 million and the sum of £190 million which the electricity industry borrowed from the Government last year for its capital programme, my hon. Friend will not wish me to pursue that line.
The hon. Member for Workington asked about the relationship between the Generating Board and the Atomic Energy Authority. The Bill does not in any way affect the powers of the Authority or its relationship with the Generating Board. The hon. Member

for Newton spoke of the customers of the Generating Board being given safety instructions by the Board. At the moment, the Board has only one customer—and that will probably be the case for a long time—and that is the Atomic Energy Authority. The Authority is the only purchaser of isotopes and the relationship of the Board and the Authority, formed many years ago, is to continue unchanged.

Mr. Peart: Surely it might be possible now for the Board to sell direct to private industry? Is that so? If it is, the point raised by my hon. Friend is important.

Mr. George: I purposely added the words, "for some time to come". I am aware that the phrase in the Bill referring to sale to other persons opens a door. That door is not likely quickly to be opened because the centre at Amersham is rather a complicated place. It will not be readily duplicated until those who intend to duplicate it see that there is a far bigger market for them and that market will develop slowly. I hope that they will eventually come in because when they do other benefits will be conferred.
Only people of substance can come into this industry, and, if they do, they are almost certain to start their own lines of research. If there is unity between the Authority, the Board, and one or two private firms in this new and expanding industry, as the hon. Gentleman said, such a partnership will, in the long run, be best for this industry.
Nothing alters the relationship which exists at the moment between the Atomic Energy Authority and the Generating Board. The Board has a duty to generate electricity and to supply it in bulk, and there is nothing to stop it from doing this by means of nuclear energy. Nothing is changed by the Bill in the relationship between the two authorities.
As regards the duplication of staff, the Central Electricity Generating Board will require very little staff to exercise the power which we seek to confer on it by the Bill. I think that we can, therefore, safely assume that there will be no duplication.
As regards duplication of research, nothing new is being done. The Bill


simply gives the Board power to do something which has been done for a long time at Harwell. No new technique has been evolved. Perhaps on a bigger scale the Board will apply the practice which has been applied for many years at Harwell. Therefore, little research will be required to make sure that the Board carries out properly the process on which it will be embarking if the Bill is accepted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East made a most attractive and well-informed speech. I learned a great deal from what he said, but running through his speech was the fear which he felt about the use made of isotopes by British industry. I have no doubt that British industry is as far ahead today in its use of isotopes as industry in Germany, Europe, or even in the United States of America. We have had information to that effect this evening. What has been said will do no harm. It might make those in industry concerned with production look again at their practices to see what is available for them in the products of the Amersham Radio-Chemical Centre, but this little Bill, trying to confer, as it does, new powers on the Generating Board, does what the House hoped would be done. It ensures that this new industry, as yet a small one in what to many people is a mysterious field, will be encouraged in every way to go ahead and expand, so as not only to confer benefits medically, and not only to bring more and more devices to the use of industry, but also to help the general prosperity of this country, and our export drive.
This new surge forward which will come about by the use of the vast resources of the Board can ensure that we achieve the one thing Which I believe is vital to this country. There are not

many fields today in which we can say with certainty that we lead the world. From time to time there were many fields in which we could declare openly and with certainty that we led the world, but, as my right hon. Friend says, here is one sphere in which we lead the world.
It is essential that we grasp every opportunity, and bring in every party capable and willing to help, to ensure that this country of ours continues to lead the world in the use of radioactive isotopes.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Sharples.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY (AMENDMENT) [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to empower the Central Electricity Generating Board to produce radioactive material in a nuclear reactor at any of the Board's generating stations for sale or supply to other persons, and to sell or supply radioactive material produced in any such reactor, it is expedient to authorise any increase attributable to that Act in the sums which may be required to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund, or paid into the Exchequer, or raised by the Treasury, under section forty-two of the Finance Act, 1956, as amended or extended by any subsequent enactment, or under section seventeen of the Electricity Act. 1957.—[Mr. George.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (JUDGES AND PENSIONS) [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the appointment of additional judges of the High Court and Court of Appeal and to make further provision with respect to the pensions of certain judicial officers, it is expedient to authorise any increase in the sums payable under any enactment out of the Consolidated Fund or out of moneys provided by Parliament which is attributable to any provisions of the said Act—

(a) increasing the maximum number of puisne judges of the High Court or of ordinary judges of the Court of Appeal, or
(b) amending the provisions relating to the pensions of stipendiary magistrates, of persons holding any of the offices specified in Part I of the Third Schedule to the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, or of the Judge Advocate General.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (JUDGES AND PENSIONS) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(ADDITIONAL JUDGES OF THE HIGH COURT AND COURT OF APPEAL.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

5.57 p.m.

Sir Frank Soskice: I should like to put one or two questions on this Clause.
This is the stage at which we should examine in rather more detail than we do on Second Reading what we intend. The Attorney-General, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, indicated that the provisions in Clause 1 were really enabling; there was no obligation to fill the new appointments for which provision is made, either for the High Court or for the Court of Appeal. In laying the foundation for bringing in the Bill, the Attorney-General gave us a clear and lucid account of the arrears of work which had been piling up.
Can the Solicitor-General tell me—it may well be that he cannot—what are, broadly speaking, the intentions with regard to filling the appointments which can now be made. That will obviously involve some consideration as to the

likely flow of work in the future, in particular, in the divisions which the Attorney-General described when he moved the Second Reading of the Bill.
I know that the Solicitor-General has asked for assistance from his advisers to enable him to answer this question. Perhaps I might put it in a slightly different form—not too obviously, I hope—so that he may receive the necessary assistance to put him in a position to answer me. I think that he will shortly get that information, and if he can give me an answer I shall be grateful.

6.0 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Jocelyn Simon): I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his usual courtesy in showing a slight hesitation in speech which enabled me to be sufficiently briefed to answer his questions. My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned the places where the pressure is particularly acute at the moment. That is the reason for the provision of an additional court of appeal, which my noble and learned Friend proposes to constitute under the powers in the Bill. As for the puisne judges who sit in various divisions of the High Court—my noble and learned Friend proposes to appoint two additional Queen's Bench judges.
In addition, as my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out, although the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division is managing to cope successfully with its work at the moment, it has been enabled to do so only with the assistance of four Commissioners who sit specially to try defended divorce cases. As my right hon. and learned Friend reminded the House, the employment of Commissioners for that task was severely criticised by the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce under Lord Morton of Henryton. It is the intention of my noble and learned Friend gradually to replace the Commissioners by additional High Court judges, but he does not propose to do that all at once. It will be done over the years. I can therefore say that the likelihood is that at some time in the future he will use the powers that he has taken under the Bill in relation to the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division also.

Sir F. Soskice: I thank the Solicitor-General for that very full account, which


has entirely satisfied me. As I understand it, appointments will be made as the need arises for vacancies to be filled. The hon. and learned Gentleman has dealt with the matter very fully, and the hesitation in speech to which he called attention has produced the most fruitful and valuable results.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(PENSIONS OF CERTAIN OFFICERS OF SUPREME COURT ETC.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Sir F. Soskice: Can the Solicitor-General tell the Committee the result of the deliberations between his right hon. and learned Friend and himself on the point which I raised during the Second Reading debate in respect of this Clause? I then argued that the Masters of the Supreme Court should be equated, in relation to the length of years for which they have to serve in order to become qualified for their full pension, to county court judges. The Bill reduces the present period of twenty-five years to twenty years, and in the circumstances I argued that inasmuch as the period of the service of county court judges is now fifteen years it was logical to equate Masters of the Supreme Court with them in that respect.
It seemed to me that when one considered the growing volume of work which now devolves upon Masters of the Supreme Court, as evidenced by figures which I placed before the House during the Second Reading debate—with which I will not now trouble the Committee—those Masters had a strong claim to have their period of service reduced from twenty to fifteen years in order that they should qualify for their full pension at the half salary rate for which the existing legislation provides.
I would not like the hon. and learned Gentleman to think for a moment that I am in any sense ungrateful to him and his colleagues for having reduced the existing period from twenty-five years to twenty years, but it seemed somewhat difficult, in logic, to justify a sudden and

arbitrary stop in the right direction at twenty years, and that it would be proper and reasonable, in the case of these very hard-worked judicial officers, to continue until the fifteen-year period was reached. I explained that I naturally did not expect the right hon. and learned Gentleman to be able to give me an answer there and then, but he indicated that he would be good enough to consider the point between the Second Reading debate and Committee, and would see whether there seemed to be circumstances that might justify the course I suggested.
No Government Amendment has been put down embodying the change that I asked the Government to bring in, and I accordingly draw the inference that the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, having thought the matter over, do not see their way to accept my proposal. I would, however, like the Solicitor-General to be good enough to indicate the reasons which led him to this conclusion. I do not think that they were adequately explored by the Attorney-General—possibly because he was taken somewhat unawares by my question—but from the date of the Second Reading debate to today the Law Officers of the Crown have had full opportunity to consider the matter. I am quite sure that the Solicitor-General will have done so, in implementing the promise which his right hon. and learned Friend gave me.
In those circumstances, I should be grateful if he would say whether he now feels able to accede to the course I propose, and whether there is any hope that something may be done in the later stages of the Bill, either in this House or in another place.

The Solicitor-General: During the Second Reading debate, with his usual combination of moderation and cogency, the right hon. Gentleman argued that the pension provisions for the Masters of the Supreme Court should be brought into line with those for county court judges. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General mentioned some of the difficulties which he saw in the way of doing that, but he promised to look into the matter with care before the Committee stage. I need hardly say that he has done so.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite correct in drawing the inference, from the fact that the Government have not put down an Amendment, that the difficulties are formidable. At present, county court judges have to serve for fifteen years in order to earn a full pension; Metropolitan magistrates have to serve for twenty years, and Masters of the Supreme Court for twenty-five years. Service in office for that time qualifies them for a full pension of one-half of their last annual salary. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out, the Clause proposes that the period should be reduced from twenty-five to twenty years in the case of the Masters and other Third Schedule officers—if I may so term them—that is, the judicial officers set out in Part I of the Third Schedule of the 1925 Act, excluding official referees because special provision was made for them in 1954 and their pension span is fifteen years like the county court judges, since the type of judicial work they do is akin to that done by county court judges.
The Clause proposes no alteration in the pension span of Metropolitan magistrates, so that if the proposal in the Bill is implemented they will have to serve for twenty years and the Masters of the Supreme Court for twenty years in order to qualify for full pension. But a pension span of even fifteen years does not necessarily enable a person appointed to the sort of judicial office which we have been discussing to earn a full pension on retirement. Of the 74 county court judges now in office, ten will not qualify for full pension on retirement at the age of 72. Ten of the total amounts to 13·5 per cent. of the whole number.
Of the Metropolitan magistrates, there are seven, that is, nearly 26 per cent., who will not qualify, but, if their pension span were reduced to fifteen years, only one would not do so. Under the provisions as they remain untouched by the Bill, about one-quarter will not qualify. In the case of the Masters, eleven—that is very nearly half, about 42 per cent.—would not qualify if the pension span remained at twenty-five years, but when it is reduced to twenty years, as is proposed under the Bill, seven, that is, 27 per cent., will not qualify. That 27 per cent. is very close to the figure of about 26 per cent. of the Metropolitan magistrates,

so they are brought into line with the Metropolitan magistrates in that respect as well.
In giving those figures, I have included among the Masters the Registrars of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, and this affects the next point that I shall come to. All those Registrars do not come under the provisions of the Judicature Act: since they are civil servants, some come under the less favourable provisions of the Superannuation Acts. So one has to consider, not only the Masters, but their exact comparables, the Registrars of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, some of whom come under the Superannuation Acts.
The next thing we had to consider, in responding to the request of the right hon. and learned Member, was that since the Priestley Commission the pension and salary terms of all these judicial officers have been reviewed in the light of the pension and salary provisions of the Civil Service. The initial review in 1955–56 was carried out in the direct light of the recommendations of the Priestley Commission. Therefore, the pension provisions of the lower judiciary—and indeed their salaries—now tend to move in reflection of those of the higher Civil Service as recommended by the Coleraine Committee. One has to judge the pensions and salaries of the lower judiciary in the light of the comparable pension provisions for the higher Civil Service.
The first thing we found was that, in the administrative and professional classes of the Civil Service, it is not at all uncommon for a Civil Servant not to earn the full pension permitted under the Superannuation Acts. Therefore, one cannot say that there is any intrinsic right to earn a full pension. Secondly, although under the Superannuation Acts in very special circumstances there may be a case for favourable treatment for later entrants where it is necessary to recruit persons with special qualifications, that in no way implies acceptance of the principle of compensation for everyone who cannot qualify for maximum pension solely because of late entry.

6.15 p.m.

The third thing I would say in that connection is one I have mentioned already. Of the types of officers we are considering, the Masters and Registrars,


three of the Registrars come under the Superannuation Acts, so there is a direct connection there of which one has to take cognizance. Lastly, one has to bear in mind that there are certain Civil Service posts which are often regarded as very closely related to those of a Master or Registrar, such persons as the Chief Land Registrar, the Chief Charity Commissioner, the Public Trustee and Chancery Registrars; and all those receive the less favourable terms of the Superannuation Acts.

That being so, it seemed to us that, with the best will in the world—and I hope the right hon. and learned Member will acknowledge that we have given very great consideration to this matter—it would not be right to improve further the pension terms of the Masters. I entirely agree with what he said about the importance of their work. I think everybody who has practised in the law will acknowledge that it is on the Masters and their skill and despatch that the speedy, efficient and economical conduct of litigation very much depends.

We feel that in reducing the pension period from twenty-five to twenty years we have not made a sudden and arbitrary stop, if I may adopt the words of the right hon. and learned Member. If one looks at the position of the Masters in the context of the position of the Metropolitan magistrates, with all the strain of publicity which is attendant on their duties, if one views it in the context of the pension provisions of the higher Civil

Service, the step we have taken is shown to be the right one, and I am very grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for welcoming the improvement which it has brought about.

Sir F. Soskice: I wish simply to thank the Solicitor-General for his very full answer. He has put the matter very clearly with a wealth of detail, which I should like to have the opportunity to study later on in case we decide to revert to the matter through the medium of another place. I am particularly grateful to him for the tribute he felt able to pay to the work which is done by Masters of the Supreme Court in facilitating the conduct of litigation.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 4 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EXPENDITURE, ON SPECIAL PURPOSES) (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Bill referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.—[Mr. Galbraith.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Redmayne.]

Orders of the Day — FORD MOTOR COMPANY, DAGENHAM

6.19 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): In a long statement at the end of Questions today I tried to set out fully the reasons for the decision which I have taken with regard to Fords. I will not read that statement again, as I understand that many hon. Members, on both sides of the House, want to speak in this debate.
As far as the history of the matter is concerned, the application was received by the Bank of England on Thursday night, I saw it on Friday morning and discussed it on Friday afternoon and since with representatives of the United States company and the United Kingdom company. On Friday afternoon, I received a deputation introduced by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker), whom I see in his place, a deputation from Dagenham Corporation.
I also stated in answer to a Question on Thursday that I would inform Mr. Beard, chairman of the Ford Joint Negotiating Committee, that I was willing to meet a trade union deputation if one wished to see me. I have received no such request. I have fully considered all the views put in these interviews and the views which have been given expression elsewhere.
I think that United States investment in the United Kingdom is to be welcomed for several reasons. We need investment in this country. There was considerable criticism in the debate in the week before last that investment here was at too low a level and such investment is likely to provide employment. What better if it could be directed to areas where unemployment is a problem? It adds to efficiency of industry here, particularly when it involves bringing over the results of United States research and development programmes which are on a greater scale than we can find resources for here, for obvious reasons.
They have a larger market and a much greater gross national product, but we have derived considerable benefit from the bringing over to this country in other cases of the results of United States research and development. That increases our export potential. I think that every

Government since 1945 have done their best to attract United States investment here.
Another general point is that such a movement of United States funds helps our balance of payments and adds to our resources for investment overseas. In the debate which took place in the week before last, I spoke frankly to the House about our balance of payments problem. I gave my view of the present situation and expressed anxiety as to whether, in the present balance of payments position, and prospects, we shall be able to do all we should like in overseas spending and lending. It is quite clear that a transaction of this sort will fortify our resources for those purposes.
A third general point concerns the movement of capital. The United Kingdom has a paramount interest in the freest possible movement of capital. We want capital to move freely. We do not want other Governments to impose restrictions, or to be too nationalist in their approaches to the movement of capital. We have been steadily building up our position again as a creditor nation over the last ten years, and I think that it would be silly for us, of all people, to raise difficulties or impose restrictions unless they are absolutely necessary.
My next point, which I have already mentioned in my statement, has to be balanced against other matters. Should there be a limit to this process of foreign capital coming into the country? What matters under this heading is control. In industries which are important for national security, or in those which are a major factor in our economy, obviously there must be limits to the extent to which control can be allowed to pass to foreign countries.
Each transaction has to be considered on its merits. There may be transfers of control of particular firms which may be advantageous. There may be others which may not be advantageous. One has to consider the balance of advantage in each case and decide each case on its merits. This I promise to do. That is really irrelevant to this decision, because in this case control is already in the United States of America.
We must consider the future of the motor industry in Europe. Against that background we have to consider the pros


and cons of the transaction. The 1950s were characterised by relatively easy expansion. There was on the whole a sellers' market. In the 1960s there should be continued expansion, probably less fast, with intensified competition in world markets between the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy and France. This transaction will strengthen the competitive power of Fords in the United Kingdom.
The phrase "operational flexibility" has been frequently used and perhaps commented on adversely. There has been an attempt to construe the phrase as being in some way rather sinister. I answered a question about the past after I had made my statement today. I think that the meaning of the phrase is fairly simple. If the parent board is considering the future, where to put its main emphasis and effort outside the United States, it will be affected by the consideration whether the United Kingdom company is 100 per cent. owned. It is bound to be affected by that consideration, particularly if we are moving into a phase of greater competition.
It is said that production will be slowed up in the United Kingdom to suit output in Detroit. It is said that exports from the United Kingdom to the United States may in some way be affected. I see no reason why they should be affected to any greater degree than in the existing circumstances. As things are at present, production can be slowed up in the United Kingdom, or the United Kingdom company can be prevented from sending exports to the United States, because control is already in the United States. If the transaction goes through and the subsidiary here is 100 per cent. owned, it is much less likely to happen. It is much less likely that Fords in the United Kingdom will not be permitted to develop to its fullest possible extent.
We must also remember that, if the transaction goes through, the intention is that Fords in the United Kingdom should become bigger than all the other activities of Fords outside the United States put together. That gives the Ford Company of the United States a very big incentive to maintain and increase the value of its British undertaking.
In my statement I went carefully through the various matters affecting Fords in the United Kingdom and detailed the assurances which I have been given: first, that the dividend policy will continue, in other words, a large proportion of the profits will be ploughed back; secondly, that the employment policy will continue; thirdly, that the management will continue as at present; fourthly, that the majority of the Board will be British nationals, with Sir Patrick Hennessy as Chairman; and, fifthly—this was raised by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas)—that the purchase and manufacture of components in the United Kingdom will continue as at present, which means nearly 100 per cent. of the components used.
These are important matters about which it was necessary to receive assurances. These assurances have been given. They should relieve some anxieties which have been expressed.
I have also considered the consequences if this were to be refused. It would not be the end of Fords, but I believe that the incentive to build up here would be diminished. There would be the risk that in time Germany would oust the United Kingdom as the centre of Fords' main effort overseas. I also think that on general grounds it would be a fundamental shock to those contemplating investment in the United Kingdom.
Therefore, on the general ground which I have already stated, and on the particular factors affecting the transaction, there is no doubt that it is in the national interest, in the interests of those who work at Fords in the United Kingdom, and in the interests of those who depend on their supplies to the Company, that I should reach the decision which I have reached in this case. I ask the House of Commons to support me in it.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Harold Wilson: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has twice addressed the House from that Box this afternoon, but it is still fair to say, and it is a remarkable thing, that the House as a whole, the Government, the country and the Ford shareholders have still not been given enough information


and explanation to justify the Government's decision.
We began the questioning last Tuesday, by asking: why are Fords making this bid? I am not satisfied—I am sure that many hon. Members in more than one part of the House will not be satisfield—that we have received the answer. Already, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has repeatedly said—we heard it time and again at Question time last week—Fords of Detroit have full operational control. Why must it be 100 per cent. control?
Various suggestions have been made in the Press, in the City and elsewhere. One, which I am bound to say occurred to me as soon as I heard about this was that perhaps Fords would like to get 300 million dollars out of America and get into good sound British equities before there is any possible devaluation of the dollar. That suggestion has been made quite seriously. The Economist and other commentators have suggested that there may be certain tax advantages for an American parent company in having a wholly owned rather than a partly owned subsidiary. I mean tax advantages from the point of view of American tax legislation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said nothing about that.
It has been suggested also that, if there are to be market sharing arrangements—an allocation of markets between Detroit, Dagenham and Cologne—there may be advantages from the point of view of American anti-trust legislation. Did the Chancellor go into that when he discussed this with Fords? These are complicated issues, and we do not know, but as the House of Commons we ought to know. The Government ought to know. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I will explain why in a moment.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer made his announcement, we feel, after only the most perfunctory inquiries. He had obviously made up his mind before he received the application. That was very clear last week. I have never seen a man so vehement in defending a decision which he had not yet taken. Then he obviously sat in the Treasury waiting, as the House sometimes waits for Black Rod, until Fords came along with the final formalities and the final application, his mind already made up about what be intended to do.
Why has the Chancellor of the Exchequer so obviously fallen over himself to approve the transaction? I shall not exaggerate the nationalist point of the transaction. This is not another Trinidad, in the sense of transferring a vital British-controlled asset to other hands. However, there are, for all that, very important considerations affecting the national interest.
At the general election, the right hon. and learned Gentleman went on television and accused this party of being anti-British, of all things. Why is the right hon. and "patriotic" Gentleman so eager to approve this transfer? I will give him credit for this: I do not think that it is just an ideological subservience to a big business interest, such as some hon. Gentlemen would be only too ready to display.
I think he wants the dollars. On the very day that Fords made its announcement, the President of the Board of Trade published the October trade returns showing a visible trade gap, on the usual basis, of £109 million in a single month or, on a seasonally corrected basis, £122 million. The House knows that over 1960 as a whole we are most unlikely to have any surplus at all on current account. We may have even a substantial deficit on current account.
I am sure that the Home Secretary, who many years ago said that we must have a surplus of £300 million a year on current account, which the Treasury, because of the rise in prices, later wrote up to £450 million a year, will deplore the stewardship of his various successors who have left us in 1960 with a position where we are unlikely to have any surplus at all on current account.
Therefore, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has every reason to welcome a windfall addition of about 300 million dollars to the gold reserves, just as four years ago, when the Prime Minister's financial policy was running us into a grave crisis, the Treasury was so ready to pocket the 176 million dollars from the Trinidad deal. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is facing such a desperate payment crisis, concealed as it is by the hot money which is still flowing into the country, that when he receives an application of this kind his only policy must be to take the cash and let the credit go.
We have had Trinidad, British Timken, British Aluminium, S. G. Brown, where there was a very substantial American minority holding, and now Fords. We are bound to ask: where will this end? The Chancellor of the Exchequer made no bones about it just now. He admitted that this country wants to invest abroad, and that the reserves are inadequate to sustain the volume of investment we all want to see. Therefore, he is only too ready to accept these 300 million dollars.
This afternoon the right hon. and learned Gentleman specifically reserved himself to this case, saying that he would have to judge other cases on their merits. Despite that, another thing which may result from this decision is that any American firm in this country, reading the speech the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just made, will conclude that it would be wrong not to go for 100 per cent. control. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was not talking just now about American investment in Britain. He was arguing in favour of 100 per cent. control. I am afraid that many other American firms will now come along and take him at his word.
Let us look on the starvation diet of facts which the right hon. and learned Gentleman and Mr. Henry Ford between them have laid before us at the effects of the deal.
First, we must look at the effects on Fords of Dagenham. I am sure that we all welcome Mr. Ford's assurance that the expansion programme on Merseyside, Basildon and elsewhere will continue, and we welcome, too, his assurance that the employment position at Dagenham will, as far as possible, be safeguarded. I am quite sure that that is Mr. Ford's intention. But how can anyone say what will happen if in a year or two the American car industry is plunged into another depression? Will Dagenham's interest then be fully protected? Will the disappearance of the minority British shareholding have no effect whatsoever?
I thought that the Economist this week put the issue very fairly, and I quote the opening of the article. It says:
Anyone comfortably assuming that this week's bid by Ford of America to make its ownership of Ford of Britain complete could leave the long-run commercial future of Britain's second largest motor manufacturer

unaltered would display no more respect for the parent company's intelligence than for its veracity. One does not bid £129 million for administrative tidiness. American Ford, it must be assumed, has policies in mind to the advantage of an international concern, which it might find significantly less convenient to carry through while minority shareholders still own some 45 per cent. of British Ford's ordinary shares, of which 30 per cent. is held in Britain.
In fact, the figure is not 30 per cent.—the Chancellor corrected that this afternoon.
I think that this is true of minority shareholders, as it is true of a minority party in this House. They have some rights, whether the votes are counted by Members of Parliament passing through the Lobbies, or whether it is done by counting equity shares. There is a difference between a numerical majority and a steam-roller majority, just as there would be a difference in this House as between the majority the Government can command and the situation that could arise had they 100 per cent. of the votes.
Our Companies Act, with all its shortcomings, exists to protect minority groups. Fords are paying £129 million to get rid of the minority—not just, I think, for theoretical flexibility. The Chancellor, in his statement this afternoon, used some words which I think gave ground for concern. He said:
I was told it meant that if the offer were to be accepted, their decisions with regard to expansion, production and exports in Europe would not be affected by the fact that profits from activity in the United Kingdom would belong only to the extent of just over half to the parent company.
After he had said that, I asked him whether it meant that, in the past, Fords had done less for Fords of Dagenham than they otherwise would have done because they held only just over half of the shares. The Chancellor replied that he was not making the accusation that Fords had been in any less way enterprising at Dagenham because of that, but that he was thinking of the future.
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman mean by that that Fords themselves have, in fact—in, I am sure, the nicest possible way—spoken to him in terms that might be regarded as a threat; that if they did not get permission to buy 100 per cent. of the shares it would be their intention to re-allocate their production


or their resources in favour, perhaps, of Fords of Western Germany——

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, on 10th November, Fords of Dagenham held a very big exhibition in Hamburg, advertising Fords' British products—particularly the Fordson tractor—and that the Press says that they spent £60,000 on that exhibition? Might it not be possible that Fords wish to get the full benefit of their expansion in Europe by owning all the shares in this country?

Mr. Wilson: I am very grateful to the hon. Member, because it enables me to recall that last week a London evening evening newspaper—I think it was the Evening News—had an account of some negotiations which have been going on between Fords of Dagenham and Fords of Detroit for the past two or three years, and explaining how tough Sir Patrick Hennessy was by saying that he had to fight very hard against the Ford parent company in Detroit to enable him to keep open the lines of export from this country to Europe. That suggests that there is a very real danger here.
Having referred to the effect of this decision on Fords of Dagenham, I should like to turn to the effect on the national interest. After the Chancellor had made his statement this afternoon, I asked him what assurance the Government had asked for and obtained about the intention of Fords of America to go on importing British produced cars and to distribute them through their very extensive and efficient distribution channels in the United States. The Chancellor should certainly have insisted on a minimum commitment on a long-term basis for this establishment, but from his statement this afternoon it was clear that not only did he not get such an assurance but he did not even ask for it.
Again, in Europe, what assurance is there, as we asked last Tuesday—that Dagenham will not be sacrificed to Cologne? If the world market for cars becomes more competitive, if producers all over the world face redundancies and lay-offs, what guarantee is there that Dagenham products for third countries—such as South America or the Middle East—will not be sacrificed to the interests of Dearborn, Michigan?
Again to quote from the Economist:
One cannot assume that the profit considerations motivating any international business in its interlocked operations will necessarily always run parallel with considerations of tax and the balance of payments for all the countries in which it happens to operate.
Here, I must make it plain that I do not criticise Fords in saying this. They have their job to do, but equally we have our job to do in this House. A member of President Eisenhower's Cabinet, on being appointed some eight years ago, summarised his philosophy by saying that what was good for General Motors was good for the United States. I think that very few hon. Members will agree with that philosophy, and even fewer, I hope, will agree with the proposition that what is good for Ford Motors of America is necessary and automatically good for Great Britain.
While on the subject of trade and the national interest, I should like to mention one additional anxiety. Suppose that Fords of Dagenham have the chance of substantial orders for their products from a country which is currently unpopular in the United States—let us say China, which, in the eyes of the United States, does not even exist, although we hope that that situation will improve. Will this unchallenged 100 per cent. control mean that Dagenham will be embargoed by Detroit?
This is not a fanciful suggestion on my part. Hon. Members will remember that one of the biggest factors leading to Mr. Diefenbaker's electoral victory in 1958 in Canada was a very ham-handed action by a Detroit firm, which imposed a veto on its Canadian subsidiary's desire to accept an order from China at a time of heavy unemployment in Canada. The firm was Fords of Detroit. That caused a great outcry in Canada, and probably had more effect in that election than any other factor, even though the volume of the order was very small. Employment at Dagenham, insofar as it is affected by decisions of that kind to export cars to China or to any other part of the world, should be governed by the kind of foreign trade policies which this House approves and not by a possible outburst of economic McCarthyism in the parent company's board room in Detroit.
I have mentioned Canada. The House should be reminded of the very wide


concern felt in Canada by American permeation of Canadian firms. I saw some figures the other day to the effect that 60 per cent. of all dividends paid by public companies in Canada last year went to overseas shareholders; some in this country, of course, but the overwhelming majority in the United States.
I want now to turn briefly to three other questions. First, there is the matter of the adequacy of the price offered, on which the Chancellor opened his statement this afternoon. The City columns have had a very difficult time advising those of their readers who are fortunate to hold Ford shares on this question. The price offered represents, of course, a rather big jump from the levels of ten days ago, and I personally find something unacceptable about the argument that private shareholders who have contributed nothing to the expansion of the firm should have this windfall, this tax-free bonus—and it is a very big bonus, and it is tax-free—when the workers in the firm who, by hand and brain, have built up this great asset are offered nothing. There is all this money floating about—perhaps it might have been planned rather differently.
Arguments of this kind, of course, will not weigh with those who decide these things. This is capitalism and American capitalism at that, and capitalist shareholders will form their own views as to whether the price is adequate. By the rules of their game there is some evidence that the price is too low; certainly the small minority of German Ford shareholders who refused to sell three years ago have got a price far in excess of Ford's 1957 offer.
I believe that the Government have a duty to consider this point, although for my part, as I said last week, I should prefer that if these shares are to be sold the Government should themselves take them over at a fair price. I have still to understand—and this is always a point that worries me—the argument of hon. Gentlemen opposite who fight so bitterly, especially at election times, about the British people owning a share of British industry but offer no objection to Americans doing so. Some day this schizophrenia of hon. Members opposite will explain itself to me, but I have not got there yet.
There is a second point that I should like to put to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and perhaps the President of the Board of Trade will deal with this. Under the Companies Act, as I understand it, once the firm which is making the bid succeeds in getting 90 per cent. of the shares, it can use powers of coercion to force remaining shareholders to sell. If this deal is going through, has the Chancellor thought of raising the matter with Fords and asking them if they intend to operate that provision? I think that he could quite fairly have asked, as a condition of his agreeing to the deal, for an assurance that it would not be operated.
On his own argument, on the fact that many people feel that Fords may have had a good reason to offer this price for the shares and that they must be worth more in the future, the Chancellor might have protected British interests and the British balance of payments by insisting that that provision should not be applied. Perhaps the President of the Board of Trade will tell us what consideration he and the Chancellor gave to that last week. I suspect that they gave no consideration to it at all.
The third point has been made a great deal of in the last week, and the Chancellor made it one of the central themes of his speech. It is argued that Britain is investing in America and that we should not prejudice this investment by placing limitations on American investments here. It is, of course, a plausible argument, but, with respect, I think that in this particular case it is fallacious.
We have been reminded in a lot of newspapers in the last week that Mr. Clore and Mr. Cotton have been making big investments in American property deals. But have we as a House of Commons to agree to the surrender of a major industrial complex such as Dagenham just to leave Mr. Cotton and Mr. Clore free to speculate in American real estate? This argument has been seriously put forward in a number of Conservative newspapers and in City columns last week. Which is more important to Britain?
To my mind, the real question is whether the Clore-Cotton deals should be going on at all. At a time when our balance of payments surplus has practically disappeared, investments of this


kind should not be getting the priority that they are getting. If we have resources to invest out of a surplus of current production, they would be better invested in British industry or in the Commonwealth or in under-developed areas, and not in Manhattan. I hope that we shall hear nothing tonight of the argument that because there is a certain amount of free investment going on in Manhattan we must therefore agree to American investment in this country.
In any case, do those who argue for the free flow of international investment really believe that the American Government would tolerate British investments in America which mean full British ownership of firms accounting for half of a major American industry? This 100 per cent. bid will mean that practically half the British motor car industry will have a wholly-owned American subsidiary. The American Government would not tolerate investment on that scale.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: The right hon. Gentleman will note, however, the position of Borax Consolidated in the United States of America. It is a British-controlled company controlling the greater part of world supply of borax and boron compounds. The United States Government have made no attempt to divest our interest.

Mr. Wilson: I do not think it is a fact that we own 100 per cent. of Borax Consolidated of America. On the whole of the argument and the Chancellor's repeated declarations, it is vital that Fords should be allowed to go from a majority control to 100 per cent. Ownership. Nor is Borax comparable in the American economy to the motor car industry in Britain.
I was about to say that other countries do not allow foreign investment on the scale that the Chancellor contemplates. Holland allows international capital to invest in Phillips. Switzerland allows foreign investment in Nestlés. But both countries safeguard the principle of national control, and Scandinavian countries have similar safeguards. It is a matter for consideration whether we should not be giving thought to this kind of proposal.
I want to make it clear that we on this side of the House are not against American investment in this country. There has been a great deal of it. But we are against a major industry being owned by the Americans. We are not against American investment as such in this country. There was a great amount of it during the lifetime of the Labour Government. I had a great deal to do with it, and so had my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). Especially was there American investment in Scotland which brought great benefit to the areas in question. But do not let us press this argument of the desirability of some American investment to the point of 100 per cent. ownership.
Finally, all of us in all parts of the House are deeply aware that this debate, which is on the Ford takeover, is taking place against the background of a very grave situation in the motor car industry as a whole in this country. The present Government, because they refuse to plan, because they have made certain industries—especially automobiles—the whipping boys of their economic policy, have twice plunged the motor car industry into depression. Now every time we pick up the newspapers or listen to the radio, we hear, almost daily, of fresh redundancies and short-time working in the motor car industry.
Britain's biggest car manufacturer has cut its output by one-third. The industry as a whole has cut its output by about one-half, at a time of the year when seasonal considerations would normally require a reduction in output of not more than one-fifth. The makers of accessories, who fill a large part of the industrial complex of this country, and a growing part compared with a few years ago, are suffering as a result. Pressed Steel have discharged 1,100 at Swindon and 500 more at Cowley. Lucas have put 10,000 men on a four-day week. Wilmot-Breeden have put from 3,000 to 4,000 men on to two-and-a-half to four days a week. Smiths Motor Accessories, Automotive Productions and Associated Engineering—nearly all these firms are going on to short-time or actual redundancy. Unemployment areas are heavily dependent on expansion schemes of the industry. Existing motor car areas very much fear over-expansion of the industry as a


whole. There is deep concern about the industry both as regards home trade and export markets.
I hope, without going into this wider field, that we can get an early debate about the problems of the motor car industry as a whole as they existed before the latest move from Fords, because the economy is heavily dependent, to a degree unprecedented in our economic history, on the lurchings one way or the other of the motor car industry. I would put this to the Government now, because this is urgent and we cannot wait for another debate. There is the greatest possible need for an urgent inquiry into the future of the industry as a whole, into its size and expansion, and I would hope that the President of the Board of Trade, in consultation with the motor car manufacturers and, for all I know, with the trade unions, will agree now to set up a development council or a working party in the industry, with representatives of both sides of the industry and independent members, so that we can see something of the prospects of the industry and so that the right decisions can be taken nationally and firm by firm.
Tonight, we are concerned with the Ford Motor Company. I have given my reasons for showing that the Government have acted to some extent irresponsibly with far too little evident concern for the national interest involved. Their minds were made up before they began to collect the facts, and their examination of the issues before the Chancellor's statement has been perfunctory. Worse, this takes place against the background of a very serious balance of payments position, which makes the Government all too ready to sacrifice the long-term interests of the country for the sake of a short-term gain to the dollar reserves.
I still feel that they would not have been so willing to approve the application, with all the difficulties involved, if our balance of payments had been strong and our reserves adequate. It is all part and parcel of their general attitude to economic affairs. Refusing to plan themselves, they are ready to leave the major decisions about our economy to others, whether British or American industrialists. They have erected complacency into a system of Government, and the country is paying the price. We have

had too little information to justify the step that the Governmen are taking.
It may be that the President of the Board of Trade, in winding up, will tell us more than the Chancellor has done in his two efforts today at the Box. If not, then conscious that the Government intend to go from here to sanction a major decision affecting a major industry, conscious also that the House has not been given adequate reasons for that decision, we shall register our disapproval of the Government's attitude in the Division Lobby.

6.59 p.m.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: Since, rather to my surprise, I find myself following the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), I hope that I may be allowed to say, with the greatest respect, that I am glad that he has put his case with restraint, because it would be a great pity if anti-American venom were injected into this debate.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: Nonsense.

Mr. Lindsay: No one could possibly accuse me of being anti-American, but that does not mean that I am happy about the situation, which has existed for many years, in which half of so important an industry as the motor car industry is controlled by another country. But, in my view, the time to change that situation has already past. There have been many opportunities when we could have done so, when the capital of Vauxhall Motors or of the Ford Motor Company was reconstructed. In my view, the greater proportion of ownership which will now result from these proposals represents merely a difference in degree and, therefore, I am satisfied that the Treasury had no alternative but to approve the proposals.
I take the view, however, that it is dangerous for so large a proportion of such a vial industry as this to be controlled by a foreign country, even by our friends and allies in America. So long as things continue to go well, I have not the slightest doubt that these pro-proposals, as the Chancellor said, will be of the greatest benefit to the Dagenham company and its ancilliaries. Of course, those in control of it intend to run it to make a profit, and, of course, they will provide good employment for


thousands of our people, perhaps many more thousands than they employ now. There is no doubt about that.
I do not think that we need look very far for the reasons for this proposal. It is perfectly natural, with the massive investment contemplated by the American company, that it should wish to reap the benefit by taking the higher profits which will accrue. There is nothing sinister at all about the proposal. But, I ask myself, what will be the position if a serious slump occurs in the United States, like the one before the war, when nearly 15 million people were unemployed—and with the American motor industry desperately pushed for exports? Although that possibility may seem remote, I think that it is one that we should face now, and face squarely.
I do not believe that there are friends and allies when it comes to a desperate trade war. That half of the motor industry which America already controls will be run, as it is now, in American interests and not in British interests. Up to now, everything has been fine because American interests and British interests have coincided. If trade becomes much more difficult, and the Ford Company finds that it can make profits and maintain employment in Dagenham only at the expense of profits and employment in Detroit, the answer will be absolutely inevitable. I think that we all know what view would be taken. In those changed circumstances, I do not believe that the assurances which were given to the Chancellor, assurances which, I accept, were given in complete good faith, would really be worth very much.
This seems to me to be the danger of the situation confronting us. I accept, control having passed, there is nothing to be gained, except perhaps acrimony, by preventing ownership passing, too. My conclusion is that we should never have allowed such a situation to arise. We should regard this as a jolt and a warning, and we should take what steps we can to prevent the major part of any other vital industry becoming foreign-controlled.
For a nation to control the majority of its important industries is, surely, a basic principle of sovereignty. Of course, we wish to encourage foreign investment

in this country, particularly American investment, but, in my judgment, control of the major part of a major industry is a quite different matter. It may be said that America would be unwilling to invest without control; but there are many examples where the contrary has applied. In Japan, for instance, America has made many major investments and been satisfied with 49 per cent. of the holdings. I do not, therefore, believe that control is as important as all that.
The Chancellor gave a warning in his statement this afternoon, which he repeated this evening. I hope that he will go further than that. I hope that he and the President of the Board of Trade will go through our economy industry by industry, major company by major company, to decide which would be the most suitable of the many obvious precautions which it is open to us to take to prevent such a situation arising again.

7.6 p.m.

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: On both sides of the House, we are all very much concerned about this proposal. For my part, I should like to identify myself with every single word said by the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Lindsay). I have no venom of any kind against Americans. I have the greatest admiration for them as a people. I would very strongly welcome American investment in this country. Those are not my reasons for probing further the Government's action in regard to the purchase of Ford Motor Company.
What exactly does Ford of America want here? It is absolutely clear that the Americans are out for 100 per cent. control. There is no question about that at all. They have made it quite clear, because they have said that the offer they are making is dependent upon acceptance by other shareholders to the extent of 75 per cent. in numbers and 90 per cent. in value. Those figures are chosen, of course, because, if they have those percentages of acceptances, they can force the remainder to sell their shares.
Therefore, if they get acceptances to the extent of 75 per cent. in number and 90 per cent. in value, they can, in fact, obtain 100 per cent. control of the company. They have given notice, also, that the preference shareholders are to be bought out by 31st July next so that the


preference shareholders will not be standing in the way of 100 per cent. American control.
The big question, therefore, is why, when they have 55 per cent. control, do they want 100 per cent. control? The case which the Government make, and which the Chancellor has made, is that they already have 55 per cent., so it does not make any difference whether they have 100 per cent. or not. Why, then, does Ford of America want to raise its holding from 55 to 100 per cent.?
Every lawyer and every director here, and anyone who has ever had anything to do with a company, knows perfectly well that a company in this country must be run in the interests of the company as a whole, not in the interests of any body of shareholders, not even in the interests of the majority of the shareholders. It has to be run in the interests of the company as a whole. Thus we have the position which my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) referred to, in answer to an intervention a little earlier.
Sir Patrick Hennessy, in view of the distribution of shares in Ford Motor Company in this country at the moment, can stand up to Detroit and say to Detroit that he, in the interests of the company in this country, wants to develop the European market and, for that purpose, he proposes to spend money on advertising there. He is in a position to do so, but only because a substantial part of the shareholding in Fords in this country is at the moment not in the American company's hands.
The board of Fords in this country must carry on British Fords in the interests of the British company and not of any particular shareholders in the company. It is not at this moment entitled to sacrifice the interests of British Fords to the interests of American Fords. That is a position which will be completely reversed if the American company gets 100 per cent. control.
There are remedies for minority shareholders—clumsy remedies, perhaps, in same ways—through the Board of Trade, by getting inspection through the Board of Trade, and by application to the court for winding-up or the intervention of the court for the regulation of the affairs of the company. Perhaps they are clumsy remedies and, in some cases, ineffective

remedies, but they are remedies which involve publicity.
An American company involved in a situation in which it is questionable whether it is sacrificing British interests to American interests might very well hesitate before taking that course, if only because of the publicity. We have, therefore, the provision and the deterrence both of publicity and court application standing in the way of British Fords being run in the interests of American Fords, although the American organisation holds over 50 per cent. of the shares.
If this deal goes through, and the American company gets 100 per cent. control, British interests could be secured only by Government intervention. If the Government intervene to make sure that British interests are safeguarded in a crisis, it would mean taking the matter out of the commercial level altogether, dealing with it politically by Government action and perhaps involving, on the other side, the intervention of the American Government as well.
Mr. Ford has been perfectly frank about why he wants 100 per cent. control. It is not, as has been suggested by some hon. Members, merely to get 100 per cent. profits from investments. That is not the reason he has given. He has said:
Our objective is to obtain greater operational flexibility and enable us better to co-ordinate our European and American manufacturing facilities, and integrate further our product lines and operation on a world-wide basis.
We may all ask what
greater operational flexibility … to co-ordinate … and integrate … on a worldwide basis
means.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the House, on 17th November:
Does not this 'greater flexibility' mean, in plain English, the power to manipulate British Fords, and, therefore, the British motor industry, in the interests of American Fords?
The Chancellor's reply was:
… that company can do that sort of thing now."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1960; Vol. 630, c. 540.]
But that is exactly what it cannot do now to the detriment of the British


shareholders' interests and the British company.
The Economist, in the passage which my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton quoted, recognised the position perfectly well. It said:
American Ford, it must be assumed, has policies in mind, to the advantage of an international concern, which it might find significantly less convenient to carry through while minority shareholders still own some 45 per cent. of British Ford's ordinary shares, of which 30 per cent. is said to be held in Britain.
As the hon. Member for Solihull said so fairly, what we contemplated and what we have to provide against is the possibility of a clash between American interests and British interests in controlling British Fords.
There are obvious advantages to the American company in having 100 per cent. control. The one which perhaps first occurs to our minds is whether British exports to America are to be cut. In the conversations between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Ford, of the American company, exports from this country to America were not referred to. Apparently, they were limited exclusively to the European market. At a time when the Americans are producing the compact car and when they are concerned about the dollar situation and the balance of payments, surely the first question which arises is: will 100 per cent. control of the British company by the American company mean that, in the interests of the American company and of America, British Ford exports to America will be cut and that we are to take the risk of diverting our energies towards Europe?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer that question this afternoon. The Chancellor said that he had not put it to the Americans at all. Why not? Is he not concerned about the balance of payments position? Is he not concerned to know whether the company is to cut its exports to the United States from such a vast factory as British Fords? To my mind, that is not understandable. It is an appalling dereliction of duty to this country. There have been ups and downs in the motor industry.

There will be ups and downs again in the motor industry. We may be met by an international recession in the industry.
If, in those circumstances, as the hon. Member for Solihull envisaged, we are met with a world depression in the motor industry, is British Fords to bear the export of unemployment from Detroit? Has the Chancellor any guarantee about that? With 100 per cent. control, the Ford company in America will be entitled to dictate policy to British Fords which it is not entitled to dictate at present.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman trying to argue that there is a greater likelihood of those who own all the capital deliberately denuding themselves of any profit on that capital than there is if they did not own all of it?

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I wish the hon. Member would follow the argument. I said, assume that a world recession hit both America and the whole of the world's motor industry. In those circumstances, the American company obviously might easily decide that we should bear the brunt of the unemployment which would result.

Sir Godfrey Nicholson: I am following the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument closely. What possible guarantee could be given in those hypothetical circumstances?

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: The guarantee which could be given is the one which there is at present, namely, that the British company would be run in British and not American interests. That guarantee disappears once the American company has 100 per cent. instead of a mere 55 per cent. control. What this means is that half the British motor industry will go into American hands. I am sure that none of us, on either side of the House, could possibly be anything except deeply concerned about that situation.
The motor industry is now a basic industry in this country. Its success or failure deeply affects the whole of the economy, and it is not a healthy state for this country to have half a basic industry of this kind in foreign hands, however friendly we may be with them.
This decision means that the Americans can, without our knowing it until after it has happened, by commercial means, influence to an unhealthy extent our prosperity or poverty, our employment or unemployment, and our industrial and trading policy. It means that in a basic part of our economy we will be no longer complete masters.
It is a position, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton said, against which other countries have legislated and revolted. It is a position which cannot do anything except cause strain between this country and America. The Observer, on Sunday, had an interesting observation to make. It said:
If no private investor can compete against the giant American corporations, would the Government itself feel doctrinally inhibited from making a bid?
—that is, for these shares. These shares ought to be in this country. This country should not be allowed to go into 100 per cent. American control.
If this is carried through, the only answer to it, perhaps in a time of crisis which may well arise, is to take action along the lines which the Observer itself suggested, and that is by the Government taking over the shares of this company. I am quite sure that if the crisis that the hon. Member for Solihull contemplated came about, this country would unhesitatingly prefer nationalisation to Americanisation.

7.21 p.m.

Mr. Robert Carr: The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) began by referring to what is familiar to any company director or anyone engaged in industry. I could not help thinking as he went along that he showed that he was not very familiar with that atmosphere.
Whatever legalistic arguments may be put forward, it is well known to any of us who work in industry that where a company owns over 50 per cent. of the shares, as the Ford Company of America does, and always has done in Fords of this country, it does in fact control in all but very rare circumstances the policy of the other company.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I agree that it has a tremendous say in the policies of the other company. The whole point I

am making is that it cannot do that to the detriment of the other shareholders. With 100 per cent. control it can do that.

Mr. Carr: We can have long arguments about the true meaning of the word "control", but the facts of industrial life are much more like those I have stated. I strongly support the action of my right hon. and learned Friend in granting this application. It is astonishing and alarming to find this narrow, nationalistic, almost, I might say, Cuban opposition, to this proposal. I believe that to refuse this application would be against the interests of the prosperity of our economy in this country and against the cause of full employment which right hon. and hon. Members opposite are claiming to espouse in attacking the Government over the action they have taken.
My main reason for that view has not particularly to do with Fords; it is a general economic reason. What would be the repercussions on our economy in this country and abroad if we were to refuse an application of this kind? We have a great interest, probably a greater interest than any other country in the world, in foreign investment. That is to a large extent how we have lived and grown rich in the world, and to which we owe our present position in the world in political and economic terms. That is not just past history.
It is true that over the last few years we have suffered from Governments abroad taking the view which hon. Members opposite would like our Government to take today. As a result of that we have suffered some loss of wealth abroad. But in spite of that, British firms are still investing abroad. Anyone would think from the speeches made today, the remarks at Question Time, and the reports in the papers, that the United States was buying up this country. I suspect that British investment in the United States since the war—and I am not thinking only of anything that Mr. Clore and Mr. Cotton may be doing—is not far short of American investment in this country. I should like to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is possible to give us some figures to indicate the extent of British industrial investment in the United States so that we can see this matter in perspective.
What will happen to us if we put up barriers of this kind? Shall we not be encouraging more and more countries to do likewise, and may that not damage our economy far more than this sort of thing is likely to do? Is it not likely to damage us not only if we actually refuse permission but if we give an acceptance in the begrudging and restrictive terms which the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) would try to impose? I have often heard hon. Members opposite criticising the United States for attaching strings to all sort of offers. Now it seems to me that they would like to tie up an offer of this kind in a whole cocoon of strings in such a way that would-be offerers would not wish to proceed.
It is not only a matter of British investment abroad; it is also how much we want foreign capital, particularly this kind of American capital, to come to this country. Some years ago, when I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, I had a very close interest in the question of unemployment in some of the more difficult areas of this country—I am thinking particularly at the moment of Scotland. Anyone who has studied the Scottish employment problem must know how much we owe to American investment for the inroads we have made in our efforts to tackle that problem.
No one can go to Scotland without being aware of the tremendous advantages which American investment has brought both to the British economy as a whole and to Scotland in particular. Do we really suppose that American firms would go on investing in that way? I have heard Scottish Members and many other people interested in Scotland outside the House advocating that they should.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Would the hon. Member be in favour of an American combine taking over the Scotch whisky monopoly?

Mr. Carr: That is an interesting proposition. I would be against it for the reason that I like Scotch rather than American whisky.
Basically we must realise that this two-way flow of capital is a vital British

interest, more vital to this country perhaps than to any other. Therefore, it is not sufficient to look abroad and say that this country restricts foreign investment in this way or another country restricts it in another way. Those countries are in an entirely different position to Britain. Both British investment abroad and the receipt of foreign investment in this country is of vital interest to our future prosperity.

Mr. H. Wilson: The hon. Member has paid tribute, as I did, to American investment in Scotland. Both he and I have had a lot to do with it. Can he tell the House what proportion of these major American investments in Scotland are on a 100 per cent. participation basis and how many of them are merely satisfied with control?

Mr. Carr: Of course, I cannot give that figure offhand.
The point we must bear in mind is that if we expect a foreign company to come and invest here, circumstances may arise in which it may wish to have a 100 per cent. control, just as when British companies go abroad circumstances may arise where a British company might wish to have 100 per cent. control. It does not mean to say that they will always wish to have it, but if there is a feeling that this is always to be denied it would be a severe deterrent to the sort of investment which we should encourage.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Carr: I think it better that I should go on so that the hon. Member may himself have a better chance of catching Mr. Speaker's eye.

Mr. Manuel: Do not talk so much about Scotland when you do not know anything about it.

Mr. Carr: And so my main reason in supporting my right hon. and learned Friend is that if we reject this offer we promote a danger which we should distegard as our peril.
I should like to say a few words about Fords. What are these terrible fears which hon. Members opposite have dreamed up in their nightmares of the last few days? It seems a peculiar way


of cutting down the activities of a company to invest something like £130 million in it. It is true that the Americans could use the power which they achieve in that way, but it seems a rather fanciful way of achieving that end. It is true that they could wish to divert business to Germany, but, here again, which is the safer of the two positions? At the moment, Fords in Germany is virtually 100 per cent. owned by Fords of America. If under present conditions there is a marginal decision whether a new Ford development should go to Germany or to Britain, is it not likely that Fords present 100 per cent. ownership of the German company, compared with only 55 per cent. ownership of the British' company, might tend to make the development go to Germany rather than to come here?
Then, there is the question of withdrawing orders to Detroit in the case of slumps. This is one of the most fanciful arguments of all. It is not fanciful, of course, in the case of Ford's Canadian company. No doubt, that is what hon. Members opposite have in mind. There is, however, a big difference between Ford's Canadian company and Ford's British company. The Canadian company is making virtually the same sort of product as is made in Detroit. Moreover, the market is relatively near at hand. The British company, however, is manufacturing for a market which is far removed from Detroit and is making an entirely different range of products. It simply does not make sense to imagine Ford's British production being withdrawn to Detroit at a time of slump.
What may be the reasons why Fords of America wish for this 100 per cent. control? I was interested to hear the right hon. Member for Huyton suggest that it might be a good investment. That was a rather peculiar tribute to the strength of the British economy under the leadership of my right hon. Friends from a right hon. Member Who usually delights in saying that we are at the bottom of every league.
What may be the real reasons? There may well be genuine commercial reasons other than reasons of good investment. It may be, for example, that looking at world markets as a whole, the Ford management back in America may desire to specialise their production to a greater

extent. It might well be that for the sake of their overall market development the Americans might wish to make in their English factory a high proportion of a product which might not be so profitable. This would be difficult if they had to take into account, as the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East said, the interests of all their shareholders. It would not mean less activity for Dagenham, but it might conceivably mean, at least for a year or two, less profits for Dagenham. This might be a very real commercial reason, and certainly not a commercial reason to the detriment of this counfry, why Fords of America might wish for 100 per cent. control. In addition, there may possibly be questions relating to United States monopoly law which may also be having their influence as a subsidiary reason.
To sum up, although no one can be certain about it, I feel that the transaction is far more likely to ensure a vigorous and expansionist policy for Fords, Great Britain, in the future than if the position were to remain as it is. Certainly, I see no substantial reason to feel that it will lead to a less expansionist or vigorous policy.
What of the effect on the motor industry as a whole? This transaction does not gain any new control in the motor industry. We may not like it, but the fact remains that American companies already control 50 per cent., or whatever the figure is of that order, of the British motor industry through Vauxhalls and Fords. If this were a proposal to take over Standards or the Rootes Group, of course that issue would arise. As it is, it does not arise at all. The deal may conceivably mean tougher competition, certainly in the home market, and, possibly, in the overseas markets for British companies, but who is to say that that might not be good for the British motor industry?
Suppose that on instructions from America Fords were to withdraw from an export market such as the Chinese market, which the right hon. Member for Huyton mentioned. If that were to happen, would it not merely provide a better opportunity for B.M.C., Rootes, Standards and the rest? There is little doubt that in a decision in which the future developments cannot be certain,


the odds are clearly in favour of the decision that my right hon. and learned Friend has taken. I believe that the economic arguments are always likely to be in favour of similar decisions in future circumstances of this kind.
Does that, therefore, mean that we should always approve such applications in any circumstances? I should be the last person to say that, because I believe that in certain circumstances political and social reasons could properly override economic reasons. There is a case to be made against foreign control of too large a proportion of any one particularly important industry. If this deal were affecting a position of that kind, we should have to think much more carefully about it and we should have much more delicately to weigh the immediate economic advantages against the other more imponderable political questions which we should have to take into account.
In the circumstances, however, I believe that the deal is more likely to lead to a vigorous and expansionist policy for Fords. In the meantime, it frees a large sum of money, probably nearly £100 million, for some of the much needed other investment which we wish to undertake.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. John Parker: I have never found stronger unity in Dagenham than there is on this issue. Opinion of all kinds is against a change in the ownership of Fords. There is very deep disquiet as to what the result of such a change may be. This is, naturally, felt by the 40,000 people who work in the Ford factories, but it is also felt by the Dagenham Town Council and the Chamber of Trade. In fact, all sections of opinion, including workers in factories other than Fords, feel strongly about this issue.
Why is there this deep disquiet? When a community earns so large a part of its livelihood in one industry and from one firm, it is, naturally, particularly interested in the future of that firm. There is a feeling that this take-over bid has been suddenly sprung upon people without any information about the real reasons for it being given.
When this news first broke, hardly any statement was made by the American

Ford Company on what it proposed to do and why it proposed to do it. Owing to the disquiet felt here, last Saturday we had a statement by Henry Ford II which was rather fuller. But it still did not remove the disquiet, and I do not feel that the statement made today by the Chancellor of the Exchequer has removed that disquiet. There is a feeling that whatever promises may have been made there are no sanctions to see that they are carried out. There is an underlying fear that in a future recession, either in the United States alone or in the world car market, when all the Ford undertakings are 100 per cent. American-owned, it will be to the advantage of the parent company to divert production to Detroit and export unemployment to Dagenham.
The hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Carr) said that this was not likely to happen because different types of cars were produced, but I remind him that Fords of America has a compact car and has plans far advanced for a Ford minicar. These kinds of car are intended to take the American market which is largely met by exports from this country and they could be used to go into all Ford markets where British small cars have gone in the past. The fear that this kind of thing may happen is the basis of the present disquiet in Dagenham.
There is another point of great importance. Public relations have never been the strong point of the Ford Company in this country. The way in which this news was broken to the British public and to the Ford employees is a very good example of these bad public relations. Fords have been an American-owned firm from the very beginning in this country. Many other either wholly or partly-owned American firms in this country have very good public relations. I understand that this is the case with Vauxhalls, but it has never been the case in Dagenham. Up to the last war, trade unionism was banned altogether in Fords and there were big fights to get it established. There has always been disquiet and deep feelings of frustration among the workers at Fords and there is still an underlying disquiet and fear there.
I should like to make a short quotation on the subject of what a good


employer ought to do from a statement put out by the National Joint Advisory Council of the Ministry of Labour in 1956 and circulated to employers generally. It said:
… Employers must also accept responsibility for telling their workpeople fully and frankly about the fortunes of the firm. This is not merely a matter of publishing a works magazine or circulating a printed statement of the annual accounts. It is certainly not merely the announcement of bad news from time to time. The aim of every employer should be to maintain communication with his employees, whether through personal contact, joint committees or printed documents, so that good news will be handled equally with bad and what is said will come in course of time to be trusted as authoritative by all members of the firm. This is not easy. It may well demand a large amount of the time and attention of senior management. It will, however, amply repay the effort made.
That kind of consultation and co-operation between management and employees has never existed in the Ford firm at Dagenham. There is a strong feeling that with an increase of American control there will be more Americanisation of methods of handling labour than there has been in the past and an increase in the bad relations which have been responsible for so much of the trouble that has taken place from time to time in Fords.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: Does the hon. Member not admit that Vauxhall Motors, which is and has been for the last thirty years a 100 per cent.-owned subsidiary of General Motors, has had exemplary labour relations in this country?

Mr. Parker: I have already said that. I particularly mentioned Vauxhalls and said that the original British tradition in handling labour had been carried on there, but we have never had good relations in Fords at Dagenham.
There has been a general tendency in American subsidiaries in this country to become more independent of their parent companies in America, and they have tended to hand over a larger proportion of their shares to British ownership. They have certainly employed a larger proportion of British people in management. This has been a healthy development but in the last year or two there has been a change in this tendency.
This change first appeared in the firm of Timkin, the roller-bearings manufacturers

in Nottingham. Previously, it was 54 per cent. American-owned and suddenly, about eighteen months or two years ago, there was a 100 per cent. takeover. One cannot get a full answer from the management at present, but I believe that since the 100 per cent. American take-over there has been a great deal of disquiet among all ranks of its employees about the future. That takeover was a precedent for what is now happening with Fords. Is it to be followed by similar take-over bids? Many of us would like to know.
I suggest that the Government should bring in legislation to deal with this danger. It is not desirable that any large firm in this country should be under too much foreign control. I suggest that if more than half the shares in any firm of over a certain size are foreign-owned, the law should be such that no number of shares in excess of 55 per cent. should be foreign-owned. It should be further provided that where more than 50 per cent. of the shares of a firm are in foreign ownership there should be a Government-appointed director who should be responsible for reporting back to the Government on whether any of the actions taken or proposed by that firm were in the national interest or not. That would provide some safeguard over the operations of the firm.
In addition, there should be directors elected by the British shareholders in the firm. Legislation on these lines is desirable. It should be brought in forthwith and should be retrospective to cover all American firms in this country.

Mr. A. P. Costain: Does the hon. Member want the same sort of law passed in countries where we invest?

Mr. Parker: A great many foreign countries have such legislation already.

Mr. John Hall: Do I understand the hon. Member correctly? Does he say that this would apply only to companies where the foreign shareholding exceeded 55 per cent.? If it does, then surely the 55 per cent., and indeed 51 per cent., would give a foreign company all the control it needed, including packing the board of directors so that it could establish any policy it liked for the company?

Mr. Parker: What I said was that any firm in which more than 50 per cent. of the capital was owned by a foreign company should have a Government-appointed director and that in no case should foreigners be allowed to own more than 55 per cent. of the capital in any large concern.
I should like to say something to Henry Ford II as a warning from Dagenham. The people of Dagenham remember Henry Ford I. As we all know, he was a very successful self-made businessman, and, like many people of that kind, he liked from time to time to put out statements of his views on every conceivable subject, many of which he knew nothing about and on some of which he talked a great deal of nonsense. One of his sayings was, "History is bunk." The people of Dagenham remember, however, one interesting episode in American history, and that is the Boston Tea Party. Hon. Members will remember that American colonists, feeling that they had suffered economic injustice at the hands of the British rulers of the country, took positive and definite action. If the American Ford Company misuses the position which it will acquire as a result of this take-over bid to the detriment of Dagenham in regard to employment, there will be a Boston Tea Party in Dagenham and we shall throw the American interests into the Thames. We shall free Dagenham from colonial rule.
If there is misuse of that power by the American firm, there will be a demand on the Government here, whatever their complexion may be, that the British firm be taken into national ownership. When the firm is taken into national ownership, the Ford workers will remember the position of Renault, in France, and will want it also to be public ownership. I conclude by warning Henry Ford not to misuse his position, for otherwise the people of Dagenham will have their revenge.

7.51 p.m.

Mr. Godfrey Lagden: I am very pleased to be able to follow the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker). Before I come to the main part of my speech, I should like to take up with him one or two very small points made in his—shall we say?—very amusing speech.
The hon. Member talked about the Boston Tea Party, and he speculates as to whom the people of Dagenham will throw into the Thames. I suggest to the hon. Member that if his words and actions lead to unemployment and repression of the good things that flow from a prosperous industry in Dagenham, he will be in far greater danger than Henry Ford will be.
The hon. Member referred to local opinion in Dagenham—I take it that he was referring also to Hornchurch, which I represent, which lives cheek by jowl with Dagenham, and in which a very large number of the Ford workers reside—being united against the transaction. I would remind the hon. Member—I think he will agree with me on this point if on no other—that the Ford workers have never failed to let their elected Members of Parliament know their views, but I can inform him that on this occasion I have not received a single letter objecting to the transaction.
The hon. Member has talked about the public relations in the Ford motor works, which, according to him, have been so bad. If we cast our minds back, the hon. Member himself has done very little—in fact, he has done the exact opposite—to make labour relations between the factory and the men better than they are. The hon. Gentleman speaks of bad conditions, but it is perfectly obvious to everyone who has ever been to the works that the conditions there are as good as and better than those in the majority of the great works in the country.

Mr. Parker: I did not say "bad conditions" I said "bad relations".

Mr. Lagden: I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. Member, but I certainly thought he said "bad conditions" I will certainly withdraw what I have said if the hon. Gentleman did not use that term. In order not to take up too much time of the House in making one of the points, I wish to quote from one of the official releases of which hon. Members have had the benefit and which they may have read. The first is from Henry Ford II:
In my view, the results of the proposed transaction should be beneficial to the economies of both the United States and the United Kingdom. … I should like to repeat what was


said in the announcement, namely, that so far as we are concerned, we intend that Ford Motor Company Limited's operation shall continue under the able direction of Sir Patrick Hennessy without change in its employment policy or in its development programme.
Some hon. Members have tried to suggest that that is not a particularly straightforward announcement. I find it a very straightforward announcement indeed, and I am certain that those who are employed in the Ford motor works will be very glad to hear that that pronouncement has been made.
I now quote from another release on 2nd May, 1960. It concerns the £10 million expansion of this company's works at Basildon, Essex. It says:
A 100 acre site in Basildon New Town only 20 miles from the Dagenham factory will make it possible for many to work at the new location without moving their homes.
I would remind hon. Members of the £28 million car factory on the Halewood site.
On the question of modernisation at Fords, I quote again:
The post-war development of the Ford Motor Company Ltd. … In the years from 1946 to 1959 floor space and labour strength were roughly quadrupled, bringing about a five-fold increase in production.
This is the works—in case hon. Members are beginning to doubt it—about which the hon. Member for Dagenham was talking a few minutes ago.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated one or two rather interesting things when he spoke today. I quote from his statement, a copy of which was placed in the Library. He said:
I therefore formed the view that full American ownership would lead to a still more vigorous development in the Ford enterprise here and to an even greater effort in the export markets …
Is that what the hon. Member for Dagenham would desire? I am sure that my constituents in Hornchurch who are vitally interested in this, small shopkeepers as well as those employed in the works, are very glad to hear that that is the opinion of the Chancellor.
The Chancellor went on to say that he had based this opinion on facts. It is very important that all hon. Members, while discussing this problem, should base their opinion on facts, because that is the only thing that really matters.
My right hon. and learned Friend also said:
I am satisfied, as a result of my discussions, that so far from our having anything to fear from this proposed transaction, its purpose is to strengthen the United Kingdom and particularly to enable it to compete more effectively in world markets.
Is it not desirable that this country should be able to be more effective in the world's markets? Or would the hon. Gentleman prefer that this country's production of Ford motor cars should be run down and at the same time the production of Ford motor cars in Germany should be run up? Would that be his wish? If it is not his wish, would he be suggesting at this stage that it is the wish of his constituents? I do not know, but it seems to me that if the hon. Member is seriously putting that forward he is on very dangerous ground indeed.
I do not propose to weary the House by telling hon. Members too much of what has happened, but I would mention the £6 million new press shop and paint, trim and assembly buildings, with 4,000 men extra working there and with commercial vehicles now being made under one roof, and the jetty, which is a proud thing for anybody to look at and to realise how it has been built.
Does the hon. Member for Dagenham know—have his friends in the trades council told him, or do they not know?—that three out of every ten cars exported to the world markets in 1958 came from Dagenham? Is not this a matter on which the hon. Member should be looking not dejected as he is now but thoroughly happy?

Mr. Parker: What will the position be in 1961?

Mr. Lagden: The position in 1961 would be very serious indeed if the prosperity of 1958 were not continued and German prosperity had overtaken us.
There is also the apprentices school, with more than 8,000 books, to bring along young English people who have not had the advantages in education and in engineering education which many others have had.
I quote from the Sunday Dispatch, which came out with the astounding headline:
Fords—The Big Secret Is Out.


The paper claimed to have information from Detroit that a new baby car, now under construction and under test, would sweep the world. It went on to say that it was told and believed that the car was to be manufactured at Dagenham. Does the hon. Member for Dagenham think that that is such a bad thing? Ought it to be manufactured in Germany? Ought it to be manufactured in the United States? Ought it not to be manufactured here?
The paper goes on to say that there are certain fringe benefits which the employees of Ford motor works may be able to acquire. It says that those fringe benefits include being able to buy Ford shares at a price cheaper than the market price and a scheme whereby men laid off from work in a depression can get up to 65 per cent. of their wages.
I think that that is probably an exaggeration. In fact, I have today learned from Detroit that what is said about the purchase of shares at a cheaper price is not correct and that there are certain conditions attached to the second benefit which makes it difficult to understand how the scheme would work in this country. [Laughter.] Nevertheless, I suggest to the gentlemen who find it so amusing that the workpeople might want to become shareholders and increase their benefits in schemes for times when they are unemployed. Hon. Members opposite have lost touch with these people and do not appreciate that they want to become shareholders and are anxious to invest their money in this sort of works which they know, even if hon. Members opposite do not, is and will continue to be very prosperous.

Mr. Ron Ledger: Unlike the hon. Member, I have been considerably pressed about this matter by some of my constituents who work in the Ford motor works. Some are in the House today. Is the hon. Member arguing that in the event of redundancy there is a possibility that Ford workers will get 65 per cent. of their pay?

Mr. Lagden: I am glad the hon. Member has asked that question, although I thought that I had made it clear. This would give the workers an opportunity, through their unions, to negotiate for benefits similar to those enjoyed in the

United States. I am astonished that the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Ledger) should not think that worth fighting for and should not think that British working men should have exactly the same benefits as foreign working men, if their unions can obtain them. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Romford and the hon. Member for Dagenham would have been outside the factory gates, as they sometimes are, urging workers to withhold their labour until they get that sort of thing.

Mr. Ledger: rose——

Mr. Lagden: I have given way twice.
I ask hon. Members to recall the days before Ford Motors came to Dagenham. Many large manufacturing companies had examined the Dagenham site and had decided that it would not be profitable and not a good investment to build there. The Ford Motor Company thought differently and, with great enterprise, it built on that site, much of the factory being constructed on piles at a very high cost. The 562-acre site now occupied shows the wisdom of that decision.
Since the Ford Motor Company came to this country, it has built factories at Doncaster, Leamington, Southampton, Langley, Brentford, Croydon, Woolwich, Walthamstow, Romford, Basildon, Rainham and Birmingham. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite astound me with their levity. Are they not glad that those factories are in those places and that people are drawing, as the hon. Member for Dagenham admits, very good wages from those enterprises? Or is there something wrong with this? Are the workers to be ashamed to take this money? Of course they should not be. They are producing the goods and they are entitled to every single penny they earn.
There will be nine British and two Amenican directors on the board of directors which is to be left. Sir Patrick Hennessy, we are told, will be the chairman, and there are other names on the board which are well known in industry—Mr. Thacker, Sir Rowland Smith, and Mr. J. M. A. Smith, for instance, all names which stand for something in industry. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about you?"] I thank hon. Members


immensely for that recommendation. I sincerely hope those words do not fall on deaf ears.
In 1947, the firm of Kelsey Hayes Wheel Company, situated on practically the same site as Fords, was taken over, and, in 1953, Briggs Bodies, also nearby, was taken over. At the time, the employees of both works were told by unscrupulous persons that the moment their firms were taken over by "this heartless concern", this great Ford Motor Company, their conditions would worsen and their employment would be endangered. If he has not done so recently, the hon. Member for Dagenham should go down there and see whether there are fewer people employed and whether their conditions have worsened and whether they are in a state of rebellion against the company which they were warned about.
I believe that when this transaction came to light it was the duty of Members of Parliament, particularly those Members in whose constituencies thousands upon thousands of these workers resided, to examine the facts. What it was not their duty to do was to spread alarm and despondency among ordinary, decent working people. That has been done by some people and by some who sit in this honourable House. For years the hon. Member for Dagenham has been carrying on a sort of running battle with the Ford Motor Company. I do not know why. If I have to make a guess, I would say that all his prophecies of doom and all his prophecies of unemployment have been unfulfilled and, not liking to be proved wrong, he has hoped against hope that, if he went on long enough, he might be proved right. That is the only thing I can think of. That is the only thing of which I can think.
The hon. Member for Dagenham will forgive me if I tell him that he is a very slow-moving, unimaginative Member of this House, but on this occasion, as on all occasions where the Ford Motor Company enters into things, he becomes a gadfly dashing around trying to sting left, right and centre. I will also tell him one thing which may not make him very proud. After one or two things which he said recently, several people came to me in a state of real alarm and asked: "Is the hon. Member for

Dagenham taking leave of his senses? What does he think he is doing? We should be very worried indeed if we thought that there was even a glimmer of truth in what he said".

Mr. Parker: May I point out that I try to look after the interests of my constituents?

Mr. Lagden: I have not the slightest doubt that the hon. Gentleman tries; it is merely the method he uses which is so unsuccessful.
During his speech the hon. Gentleman said that he would like to warn Henry Ford II. Far from warning him I should like to congratulate him on showing confidence not only in this country but in the workpeople of Dagenham and Hornchurch. I believe that his action, and the investment of the money which he has suggested shall be invested in this country, will be a great blessing and will give full employment and a lot of happiness to the people whom I represent, and whom, I am sorry to say, however misguidedly, the hon. Member for Dagenham misrepresents.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Edelman: My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) complained about the poor public relations of the Ford Motor Company in Dagenham. After listening to the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Lagden) I confess that I cannot help feeling that Fords' public relations are in very good hands. Although he has not received any complaints about the anxiety of the workers of Fords, or in the motor industry generally, it may well be that the hon. Gentleman does not command the confidence of the motor workers in Dagenham. I have no doubt that in reporting their doubts, their fears and their anxieties to my other hon. Friends whose constituents include workers in the motor industry they are taking their anxieties to quarters where they know they will be considered sympathetically and receive attention.
I speak as a member for a city which is directly concerned with the motor industry, and where many of my constituents are grievously anxious about the effect of the Ford take-over bid in Dagenham. When considering the validity of the arguments which have


been advanced in favour of, or opposition to, the Ford take-over bid, I could not help wondering what would be the reaction in the United States if auto workers in Detroit, or in the United States generally, were to hear that, say, the British Motor Corporation had made a successful take-over bid for Fords of Detroit. I think that it is certain that the Americans would be deeply anxious and profoundly concerned about what the effect would be of a British take-over of a major strategical industry.
Without any chauvinisim, xenophobia, or obvious economic nationalism, there are people in this country, not only on both sides of the House, but people of all political views and of no political views, who are deeply concerned that the control and direction, not simply of Fords of Dagenham, but of the British motor industry, will be determined not from Coventry, not from Dagenham, not from Whitehall or Westminster, but from Detroit or Washington. That is really the problem with which we are concerned tonight.
One hon. Member pointed out that there was an equation between British investment in America, and American investment in Britain. He said, "In view of the nature of the money market, it is desirable that there should be this two-way investment". For my part, I welcome and endorse any form of investment which will fertilise industry, whether in Britain or in the United States, but this investment, which consists, I believe, of about £900 million of American investment in Britain, and £700 million of British investment in America, has to be very carefully examined before we accept that there is a real equation between the two.
Where does our investment in the United States lie? It lies in things like gramophone records, cosmetics and boracic powder. The investment of the United States has been steadily directed towards the key strategical centres of British industry. If one were to make an equation of American investment, and of British investment, not in terms merely of financial return, but of economic power, it would be seen that steadily the control of the strategy of British industry is passing out of British hands into American hands.
Henry Ford II has already been quoted as having made certain statements in reply to the Chancellor, principally to explain why he was putting up all this money for the balance of the shareholding in British Fords. He used the now notorious term, "greater operational flexibility" to which he has now added "co-ordination." Also, he has stated that he will do what lies in his power to continue the policies which existed before. In fact, only today the Chancellor came to the House and said that he had received certain assurances from Mr. Henry Ford II.
My hon. Friends have already pointed out, and I say this without disrespect to Henry Ford II, that assurances given by him to the Chancellor about the future of the British motor industry are not worth the breath with which they are spoken, for this reason. No one, not even Henry Ford II, can predict with any confidence what the future development of the American motor industry is likely to be, or what will be the effect of that development on the British motor industry.
The Ford Company in the United States is already working far below capacity. Despite the seasonal improvement which has taken place in the last couple of weeks, no one can say that the general decline in the output of cars and in American sales will not continue. Indeed, when Henry Ford II uses his other mystical word "integration", we begin to get some clue as to why Fords of America are seeking to buy Fords of England.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Can the hon. Gentleman suggest any possible reason why the Ford Company of Dagenham should spend a large sum of money in Hamburg this month on advertising Fordson Tractors if the company does not want to expand, but wants to contract?

Mr. Edelman: It is not my argument that Fords will cease trading. Of course, the company will trade as well as it can, but what is happening now is that Henry Ford is preparing a grand strategy for the Ford empire. That strategy is not concerned with British interests. As is stated in the Chancellor's statement, a copy of which he put in the Library, it is concerned with the economic and financial interests of the Ford empire.
I will try to show how that may develop. In trying to do so, I make no claim to omniscience in this matter in any sense. All I am trying to do is to pick up some clues which have been dropped. Although, in the events leading up to this take-over bid, the Chancellor consistently denied that he or any other member of the Government had any contact with Fords in connection with this bid, he said that the President of the Board of Trade had had communications with and had actually met Henry Ford II. It would be interesting to know, first, whether Henry Ford II gave any inkling to the President of the Board of Trade of what was in his mind—whether he had any intention of making this take-over bid—and, secondly, whether, in turn, the right hon. Gentleman gave Henry Ford II any inkling of Britain's intentions towards the Common Market.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Reginald Maudling): No such inklings were given on either side.

Mr. Edelman: In that case, we are led to the conclusion that Henry Ford II and the President of the Board of Trade must have fallen back upon the state of the weather as a subject of conversation.

Mr. Maudling: In my conversations with the Ford Motor Company I hoped to persuade it to set up manufacturing capacity in Scotland and other development districts.

Mr. Edelman: Everyone is in favour of taking industry to Scotland and doing away with the high level of unemployment which exists there today under the present Government. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned that.
We now come to another mystery. At a time when the British motor car industry is expanding its plant and capacity, when existing capacity is already excessive for the market, and when 100,000 men are working on short time, it seems extraordinary that the Americans should come to Britain and go in for this vast investment and expansion, creating capacity of such a size that by 1962—as it has been forecast—we shall be able to produce three times as many cars as we can today.
The answer can only be that Fords of America is concerned with making an investment in capital goods and equipment in this country as a long-term investment, and not necessarily with the intention of maintaining our employment at a stable level in order to yield, year by year, dividends in the interest of its shareholders—because it certainly could not carry on a tactic of that kind if it had to deal with the "nuisance" of a minority of British shareholders. What the Ford Company has in mind is to lay down plant and capital equipment and to make a great investment with the intention of co-ordinating its British national investment with the grand strategy of the Ford empire.
How would that work? I will indicate the process by which I think it would be done. It is quite clear that an international company like Fords would want to have what Henry Ford has called flexibility. That means that it could ring the changes and switch emphasis from one company to another according to the interests of Fords of America. The time may well come when, to encourage production—whether in America or in Cologne—Fords of America will want to depress production in Great Britain. If it has total ownership, which involves total control, it might be to its overall commercial interest to depress British production for a period, with the accessory intention—and here the point made by the chairman of B.M.C. this morning is relevant—of depressing wages in the British motor-car industry.
I stress this point because wages in the industry have lately been under attack. It has been suggested that the high cost of production is due to high wages. Speaking as a Member for a Midlands constituency, I would agree that a combination of new techniques and highly organised trade unions has resulted in a high level of wages being paid. But even today Fords of Dagenham is paying approximately 2s. an hour less than wages paid in the Midlands.

Mr. John Arbuthnot: Will the hon. Member explain to the House how it would be easier for Fords to depress production in this country when it had 100 per cent. control than it would be at present, when it has a shareholding substantially in excess of 50 per cent.? It could take the same action just as


easily as things are at the moment, without spending its money to do so.

Mr. Edelman: The hon. Member has repeated an argument put forward by the Chancellor, Which has been repeated time and time again by back benchers opposite. The fact is that—to draw an analogy which may simplify the matter for the hon. Member—it is all the difference between a totalitarian Government, which can do whatever they like without any opposition, and a Government confronted by a democratic opposition which are tame and civilised. They have to pay respect to the minority. If hon. Members do not accept that analogy—

Mr. Tom Driberg: They think that it is a ludicrous idea.

Mr. Edelman: A minority shareholding confers upon the minority shareholders certain legal rights. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) has already enlarged upon that point.

Mr. John Howard: The right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) referred to the case of the Canadian company which had been directed by Detroit to abandon certain orders from Canada. In the case of the Canadian company, Detroit has only a 74 per cent. control. How, then, is the position of the English company different? There is no effective difference between a 50 per cent. control and a 74 per cent. control.

Mr. Edelman: I am much obliged to the hon. Member. His example merely illustrates the supine nature of the Canadian minority shareholders. He has emphasised clearly that not only is it possible but that, in practice, Detroit has already instructed a subsidiary or peripheral company to depress its output and its profits in the interests of the parent company.
Henry Ford, in his statement, has indulged in certain abstract propositions which, to me at any rate, seem extremely ominous. I have mentioned some of them, but he has also said that we are now entering an era of intense competition. That, of course, is the way in which capitalism works. Those who can survive that competition, those who are not

bankrupted by that competition and those Who are not rendered unemployed by it or have to work short time, are the winners. They are the ones who stand on top of the pile at the end of the day, but for those whom I represent, the workers of Coventry, those words had a sinister ring.
Is Ford of England, integrated with the great massive strength of Ford of America, now to indulge in all-out, cutthroat competition with the older established British companies? Is that to be the intention? If so, how are we to obtain the grand strategy for the British motor industry, which is the only way in which the British motor industry and the jobs of the workers concerned can be preserved? How are we to be masters in our own house if the effect of the deal will be so to integrate Ford of England with Ford of America that we are to enter an era of competition which will be detrimental to an overall plan for British industry, and which will end in unemployment?
It is not only economic considerations which count in this matter. I began my speech by disclaiming any form of economic chauvinism. We ought to take note, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham said, of some of the lessons of history. What happens and what has happened when the major, the basic, industry of a country has fallen into the hands of foreign capital? An hon. Member opposite taunted us with the example of Cuba and said that we were becoming a Cuban Opposition, but the revolt in Cuba and many of the troubles in Cuba stemmed directly from the fact that the basic industry of Cuba was in foreign hands. It was an ownership which was oppressively used, an ownership which was not used democratically. It was an ownership which was profoundly resented by the workers in that industry.
The Chancellor ought to remember what happened in the case of Nasser. He ought to remember what happened about the Suez Canal, when there was an Egyptian revolt against the ownership by foreigners who had their hands on the jugular vein of Egypt. I could multiply the examples, but I will not. Hon. Members opposite jeer and sneer, but they would be making a great mistake if they did not recognise not only the


practical disadvantages of this takeover bid, but also the psychological and social disadvantages. I hope very much that this will be the last arrangement of this kind in which an overseas company, untrammelled, will be allowed to put its hands on and take control of a key industry of this country.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. John Hobson: This has been in many ways an interesting debate to those who have been observing What hon. and right hon. Members opposite have been doing. The right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) is, of course, one of our most spirited orators, but the most eloquent part of his speech was the great silence which surrounded him for the most part of it.

Mr. Percy Collick: Not at all.

Mr. Hobson: We have just heard from the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) that he opposes the decision of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor, first, because he is frighthened of what the consequences may be for the Ford Company, and secondly—in order to have a doublebarrel in case the reverse should happen—because he thinks that the Ford Company may become too powerful and too competitive for the trading interests which exist in the Midlands and in other car factories in the country. We have to make up our minds how we regard this bid for a minority of the shareholding of Fords.
I represent a constituency in which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Lagden) mentioned, there is a large subsidiary of Fords, a Ford foundry employing nearly 2,000 people. I am glad to say that the representatives of those who work on the shop floor came to see me over the weekend about their anxieties for the future. They expressed, as everyone employed in a company the management of which is in doubt for the future must, anxiety as to what was going to happen, but the first anxiety they expressed was not for themselves but for their fellow-workers in Midland car factories.
They expressed the view that, while it may be a very good thing indeed for

them, it might produce exceedingly severe competition for their neighbours and friends who work in Standards, Rootes, B.M.C. and the other great car factories of England. I think that is a right view, that one of the consequences of this offer may well be that Fords of Detroit will start pumping an enormous quantity of capital not only into Dagenham, but into Leamington, Liverpool and, perhaps Scotland, which will produce much more acute competition for other car manufacturers.
I do not think that is a bad thing for the economy of the country as a whole, which is what we are concerned with in this House. In the first place, it should make Fords of England far more competitive in overseas markets, and I would have assumed that it would have made the other car manufacturers far more competitive themselves. Whatever one may say about the motor industry at the moment, there can surely be no dispute that its future must depend upon its export trade and that anything which can increase the competitiveness of our car factories must be to the benefit of the car industry and of the country as a whole.
I welcome the assurances which my right hon. and learned Friend has obtained from Mr. Henry Ford. I do not think anybody should imagine that they are mere words. They will and can be used against him hereafter. No responsible person could give such assurances without having to meet them in the future if called upon to do so. I am sure that all those who represent constituencies in which there are Ford employees will particularly welcome the assurances that the management of the British company will remain substantially as it is at present and in future will remain substantially British, and, secondly, that the employment policy of the British company will remain unaltered.
I should like to ask, however, about the undertaking concerning components. Not only does it affect the foundry within my constituency, but there are many other things which Fords at Dagenham and in other areas require. I should like to ask particularly about machine tools and raw materials. Does the assurance given by Mr. Henry Ford go to the question of whether the tooling up and


the use of raw material, particularly sheet steel, will in future be British, or is the assurance confined only to components for the assembly of motor cars, the majority of which are already manufactured by subsidiaries of the Ford Motor Company? The assurances which have been obtained will do much to alleviate the natural anxieties of all those employed in the Ford Company, who are anxious to know what is to happen in the future.
That brings me to the real question which has troubled this House, namely, as to the probable result in the long-term of the suggestion that the American company should take over a 39 per cent. minority holding in the British company. The hon. Member for Coventry, North said that it was part of the grand strategy of the Ford empire. Even if we assume that it is so, is it not the case that anybody who has an empire is much more likely to expend money upon it and to develop that part of it which he really controls rather than that part which he only partly controls? While we talk of military analogies, anybody in command of strategy naturally wants to use those troops who are reliable and under proper control and not somebody whose loyalties and ability are distant and uncertain.
Therefore, I should have thought that before they decide where the weight of their investment overseas shall be in future, Fords want to be sure whether they will invest in a company which they control. From that point of view, I should have thought that it was for the benefit of this country in the long run that their subsidiary in England should be on equal terms with the subsidiaries in other parts of the world, because when considering which of them to invest in hereafter they can consider each of those subsidiaries upon equal terms. I should regard it as in our interests that that should be so, and in substance, control already is in America.
In my opinion, the hon. Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) has emphasised far too greatly the importance of the minority shareholding. The rights of minority shareholders are well known, but they are fairly minimal. They do not give any right whatever to control the day-to-day trading policy of the board of directors. That is what is of importance.

Mr. Collick: Then what is all the fuss about?

Mr. Hobson: That is what I am saying. What is all the fuss about when, in fact, the board of directors can already be appointed by the majority American shareholding and when control is in substance already in Detroit?

Mr. Collick: I am trying hard to follow the argument which the hon. and learned Gentleman is advancing. It seems to me that the logic of his argument is that the more British industry passes to 100 per cent. American control the better it is for this country.

Mr. Hobson: No. I hope that I shall make it plain by the end of my speech. That is not my argument, nor is it what I intended to say as a general principle. I am dealing at present with the particular case of Fords. I will come later to the generality of such bids in future. The hon. Gentleman will find that there is a distinction between the two.
What I am saying on this bid is that the major argument which has been advanced from the other side of the House is that the minority shareholding would be of tremendous importance in the future should there be a world depression. I do not think that is so, because the day-to-day trading policies of any company are not dictated, and cannot be dictated, by a minority shareholding. They are dictated by the board of directors, which is in charge of the way the company directs its affairs. The rights of minority shareholders are only to ensure that there is an equal distribution of profits, that no scheme for the arrangement of capital is to their detriment, and matters of that kind, which cannot possibly affect the way in which the business of the company is dictated.
We have listened to many quotations from the Economist, but it is worth quoting this passage which deals with the argument of Fords that they want flexibility of operational control The Economist says:
This stated intention entirely justifies Parliamentary concern with the possible implications of such a policy for the very real national interest in the export prospects of the British motor industry. But, even within the present pattern of ownership, such a policy could not be prevented in Britain if the American parent chose to dictate it, either regardless of or in the longer-term interest of the minority shareholders. Never since the first sales branch was


set up in Shaftesbury Avenue in 1908 has ultimate control of Fords operation in Britain resided anywhere but in Detroit.
That is true, and for that reason the decision of my right hon. and learned Friend was right, because nothing of substance is being taken away. Control already resides in Detroit. For that reason, I do not think that the House should object to the taking over of a minority British shareholding of 39 per cent. when it may well lead to the Ford Company in America deciding to invest substantially larger sums in its subsidiary in this country and thus improve our own economy.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: The point which the hon. and learned Gentleman is making at present is perhaps the crux of the difference between the two sides of the House. If his argument is valid, there is no reason why the American company should want to acquire a minority interest which does not in any way by its existence impede or inhibit policy decisions of the American board. In the event of a crisis which might result in the closure of the Ford Company at Dagenham, the chief value of the minority shareholding would be to canalise all the protests and, consequently it might deter the board in Detroit from taking that decision.

Mr. Hobson: That may be so, but there are dozens of other channels. There are the representatives of those who work in the company. There are the Members of the House of Commons who represent the workers. There would be dozens of other channels for making protests about that and what goes on at Dagenham, although it would be owned 100 per cent. by Fords of America. I should have thought that there was little in that argument, because there are so many other channels available whereas, turning it upside down and looking at it the other way, if Fords of America are to develop the United Kingdom subsidiary, if they are to pump enormous sums of capital into this country, it is important to them that they should have complete control over that capital and the profits from it.
They should not have to put up large sums of money merely for the benefit of the 39 per cent. holding of the people in this country who have not put up the

capital and, therefore, do not deserve the profits from it. It is for that reason that I cannot think that anyone would put down enormous sums of money in this country unless the intention was to develop the subsidiary here. Because of that, I welcome the particular decision in this case made by my right hon. and learned Friend.
I want now to come to what I regard as the far more important question of our attitude to bids of this sort generally. We do not often have the opportunity to discuss that problem, which I regard as of far greater importance than this particular issue of the Ford minority holding. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) that the country's interests require that there should be the maximum possible freedom of movement of capital, and that any restrictions that we ourselves put on the movement of capital are likely to rebound to our own disadvantage.
As many speakers have said today, it is not merely a question of the two-way balance of movement of capital between America and the United Kingdom. It is far wider than that. Great Britain is the greatest investing country in the world. Our investments do not go merely to America but to the Commonwealth countries and to many other countries. Those investments are badly needed in many under-developed countries, and it would be regrettable were we, except for necessitous reasons, to lay down as a principle that capital should not move freely between one country and another.
I would remind hon. Members that the United Kingdom has invested about £2,000 million overseas in the last ten years, and that a very large part of that investment has been in the Commonwealth, where it is badly needed. I would regret to see any steps that were likely to stem that flow or interrupt the movement of capital to those parts of the world where it is needed.
There is, however, a countervailing argument. At what stage is one to say that capital should not come to this country because control is passing out of the country? I regard that as the crux of the problem on the general principle. I believe—and I am glad to know that speakers on the other side of the House have welcomed the fact—that


American investment should come here. While we all desire to invest as much as possible overseas, I am sure that we should also welcome investment in this country, not only from America but from other countries.
One comes, then, to the great problem: at what stage and upon what principle should one limit in any future case the investment of capital in this country? I deduce and infer from my right hon. and learned Friend's statement that he intends to apply the following principles in future. The first is to ask himself whether there is any risk to our economy by its passing to a foreign company? I am sure that that is right, and that all hon. Members will agree that that is one of the vital questions.
According to the Chancellor's statement, which I welcome, the second question, if I am right in drawing the right inference, is that in future cases he will ask whether there is a risk to the employees or other dependants in any company which is likely in future to be adversely affected. I am sure that in all future cases when it is a question of the passing of control, that question must be answered negatively before the investment can be allowed.
Thirdly, I submit that we must always in future see that we do not allow control of a large unit of our industrial production to pass into overseas ownership and control if there are any strategic questions involved and also if it means that a significant proportion of one of our major manufacturing industries is going into foreign control.
We have in every case to balance the necessity for retaining the freedom of movement of capital out of and into this country against the risk of allowing major units of our economy to fall under foreign control which may prejudice any future economic position. If I am right in deducing that those are the principles on which my right hon. and learned Friend has said that in future he will consider the problem, I welcome those, as indeed I welcome the decision which has actually been reached in this case.

8.51 p.m.

Mr. Tom Driberg: In the course of his long and thoughtful speech the hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Hobson) was,

perhaps, a little unfortunate in picking up the phrase used by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North (Mr. Edelman) about the Ford empire. He pursued that analogy and said that people who had got an empire wanted to develop it and make it prosperous, or words to that effect.
That is quite true, but we on this side of the House, who happen to be anti-imperialist, know that people who have an empire develop it and make it prosperous for their own profit and not for the welfare of the colonial territories in that empire, and that they do so very often by exploiting and impoverishing the natives. We do not want to be part of any empire, whether it is called the Ford empire or an empire of the old-fashioned political kind.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Hon. Members opposite are already.

Mr. Driberg: Thanks, to a considerable extent, to hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Fifty-four per cent. already.

Mr. Driberg: My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North also referred to a very curious remark by one hon. Member on the benches opposite who referred to what he called the "Cuban" attitude of the Opposition on this matter. I do not think that any very close analogy can be drawn between the Cuban Legislature and any part of this honourable House; but, as a matter of fact, for the purpose of settling this problem in the interests of the people of Britain, I myself rather wish that instead of right hon. Gentlemen opposite we had Dr. Castro as Prime Minister or as Chancellor of the Exchequer, just for a few weeks.
As has been suggested from the other side of the House, a Socialist Government would, of course, solve this difficulty by taking over at least the minority shareholding. If we took over the majority shareholding as well, as Dr. Castro might if he were our Prime Minister, we would, of course, acquire one quite substantial peak in the commanding heights of the economy.

Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: The hon. Member said that a Socialist Government would take over the minority shareholding. I should like


to know from the hon. Gentleman how a Socialist Government would deal with the American minority shareholding which, according to the latest figures, represents 15 per cent. of the entire Ford shareholding.

Mr. Driberg: I have not the faintest idea, but I am sure that people much cleverer than I would be able to tell the hon. Member.
I hope that I shall not be interrupted too much. I think you will agree, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that there have been some very long speeches whose length has been aggravated by a number of interruptions, perhaps from both sides of the House. I am never afraid of interruptions, but I do not want my speech to take too long.
I have been trying to follow the course of the argument. Again and again, it has come back to the point about whether the minority shareholders can make any real and effective protest and, if not, whether what is now being done has any real effect on the ultimate authority of Detroit. It may well be that the hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington and other hon. Members are right in saying that it does not make very much difference; the minority cannot make any effective protest, not even the protest that an Opposition in Parliament can make even though they know they will be voted down at the end of the day. If that is so, it seems to me greatly to strengthen the Socialist case for taking aver these holdings in the national interest. The nation, the Government, should take them over.
At the very least, the Government ought to insist, as one of the conditions of granting the application, that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) suggested, there should be a Government-appointed director on the board who could watch the progress of affairs in the company in the interests of the nation as a whole: he could report back to the Government on any developments which seemed contrary to the national interest, and he would always, of course, have up his sleeve, as it were, the ultimate sanction of some form of nationalisation.
It is not mere sentimental nationalism which causes us to be anxious about this

project. It is certainly not "anti-American venom", to use the phrase of the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Lindsay), to repeat what he himself, after all, went on to say, that there may well be recessions in the future, and to suggest that the American economy is somewhat top-heavy and precarious. Despite all the Keynesians who are now supposed to be floating around in Washington, there might come a time when there would be a quite serious depression in the motor industry. I know that it is repeating what has been said already, but, despite all the argument about different types of cars and so on, I cannot believe that Detroit would not, in such a situation as that, export its unemployment to Dagenham.
This is the main anxiety at the back of our minds. Because we feel this very strongly and deeply, it was really a little unfair of the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Lagden), in what was, on the whole, a very entertaining slapstick half or three-quarters of an hour, to suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and others are soured because our warnings that there might be unemployment have not yet come true in a big way. This is really a terrible slander on the motives and interests of hon. and right hon. Members on this side of the House.
Of course we hope that this development, now that the Chancellor has given his approval to the application, will work out for the good of the British motor industry as a whole and of our constituents in particular. We should be fools if we did not hope that. But we should be very foolish if we did not also point to some of the real dangers which seem to be involved in the transaction.
We are not reassured by the jargon in the Chancellor's statement, quoting from Mr. Ford's statement, about "operational flexibility". That sounds to me a rather sinister bit of jargon recalling almost the kind of operational flexibility which was once practised on Jarrow and on other unfortunate places between the wars.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: And Suez.

Mr. Driberg: Yes.
In addition, the Ford statement issued on Saturday referred to the intensely


competitive struggle for world markets which lies ahead; and this statement's rather optimistic tone seemed to be based on the assumption that Fords, including Fords of Britain, would necessarily be victorious in that struggle. There was no examination of the alternative hypothesis—by Fords, by the Chancellor today, or by anybody. Suppose that the Ford concern is not successful in that struggle? In the circumstances as they are, we must hope that it will be, but a depression, unbeatable competition—various factors—might mean defeat in that struggle. What will happen then, when our motor industry is even more closely integrated with that of America?
I cannot quite understand why the Chancellor and some hon. Members opposite are content—so naïvely, so gullibly, as it seems to me—to accept the assurances that they have been given. If one examines closely the notice distributed in the Ford works by Sir Patrick Hennessy, which quoted in full the letter to Sir Patrick from the vice-president of the Ford Motor Company—again echoing the jargon about "greater operational flexibility"—one finds, as the Chancellor said today, that there is an indication that there will be no change in the "employment policy" of the company. That is rather a vague phrase. Do the words "employment policy" mean the same as "employment level", or not? I should like an answer to that question.
It is also rather interesting that at the end of the letter comes this short sentence:
You may be assured that we will have regard for the interests of our English organisation and its employees.
But that sentence is not part of the letter from the vice-president of the company. It is simply signed by Sir Patrick Hennessy, the chairman at Dagenham. The phrase "we will have regard for" seems a very weak substitute for guarantees, hard-and-fast safeguards, or anything of that kind—which we might have expected from the Chancellor and, indeed, from Sir Patrick Hennessy if he had any real power vis-à-vis Detroit.
No, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I do not see why these assurances should have been found acceptable. As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North said, it

is impossible to accept them because nobody in Detroit or here can know what the future will bring to the American and British motor industries. Moreover, I hope that it will not be thought unduly offensive if I say that it seems a bit odd so readily to accept assurances from people who, over the past year or two, have steadily lied about their intentions concerning the British Ford Company, as we know the American Ford Company has done.
The final point that I should like to complain about is not the fault of Fords, but the fault of the Government. We have been treated in the past week to yet another example of the Government's contempt for Parliament—their growing practice of taking a decision and presenting the House of Commons with a fait accompli without giving the House a chance of expressing a view before the decision is taken——

Mr. Arthur Lewis: And telling the Press first.

Mr. Driberg: —and, as my hon. Friend reminds me, telling the Press first about their decisions.
This sort of totalitarian contempt for Parliament helps to explain why the Government and the Chancellor scurry so sycophantically to obey the crack of the whip of American big business when it seeks to establish itself in a more totalitarian position vis-à-vis our own workers and people. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite find that amusing. I can well understand why. They happen to be on the winning side tonight, but that will not always be so.
This attitude of the Government towards the House of Commons is one of the reasons why I am very glad that, unless the President of the Board of Trade gives us a much more satisfactory reply than I expect he will, we shall go into the Division Lobby tonight against the Government. I venture to hope that we shall have with us, and against this dangerous decision, a few of those Conservative Members who have also shown their anxiety about it, or that they will at least abstain from voting—thus following the example of some other Conservative Members of Parliament who, twenty years ago, voted against another Conservative Government, or abstained from voting, when that earlier


Conservative Government, in its blind folly, had betrayed the nation.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. Leonard Cleaver: The hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) appears not to have read or to have listened to the statement the Chancellor made earlier this afternoon. It explains most carefully, in the second and third lines, that the Chancellor had to decide whether Treasury consent should be given under Section 9 of the Exchange Control Act. He has reported what he has done and the Government have agreed that there should be a debate in this House tonight on this subject. I cannot think of anything more democratic than that.
I suggest that this question divides itself into two distinct issues. One, whether or not we should allow Fords to become completely owned and controlled from Detroit, and the other—the major problem—what proportion of our industry we are prepared to see controlled by overseas interests.
I consider that the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) has been less than fair in not putting forward the case for both sides in this matter. I am of the opinion that he has created more alarm and despondency by not having more forcibly mentioned and advantages and by dealing so much with the possible disadvantages. We should remember that the Ford Motor Company has pioneered the manufacture of the motor car all over the world. If any company can size up the merits of the motor manufacturing business it is the Ford Company. The parent company had two distinct alternatives before it. It could have invested more money in its concerns located in the area of the Six, or it could have decided to invest more money in England by acquiring the minority interest in the Ford Company. In my view, the efficient production and the progressive outlook and up-to-date management at Dagenham have been deciding factors. I am certain that it shows a confidence in the workpeople and in the quality of the Ford products.
One has to be quite certain that this offer has not been made either to reduce sales, to stifle expansion or to close the works at Dagenham or in any other part of the country. If that was the intention, as some hon. Members opposite have

suggested, it could have been done without publicity by the control that the Americans already have.
The right hon. Member for Huyton suggested that it was possible that the Ford Company would prefer to get rid of its holding of dollars and to invest in a stable currency. What a compliment that is to the way in which the Government have exercised financial control over the past few years and what confidence it shows in their ability to do it in the future.
For my part, I do net think that the offer is good enough. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It has been made at a good time for a buyer. That is, possibly, the secret reason that hon. Members opposite are trying to discover, why the purchase has been made now. It certainly has not been made at the top of the market. No doubt, the City is preparing a case which would justify an increase in the figure.

Mr. Lipton: Two hundred shillings.

Mr. Cleaver: What is important for us to decide is the allied and major problem of the extent to which we allow foreign capital to dominate our domestic scene and the extent to which we consider that our strategic industries should be controlled abroad. There is certainly genuine concern in this matter. There is always a risk of misunderstanding when there is a feeling amongst any employees that possibly the control of their company is far away and that there is an absentee boss. On the one hand, we do not wish to interfere in any way with the freedom of the buyer and seller which will encourage private industry to be both enterprising and efficient. On the other hand, there is a limit beyond which we should not go.
We have before us the example of Canada. [An HON. MEMBER: "On whose side is the hon. Member?"] There, 60 per cent. of the dividends paid by Canadian corporations are paid to, and 56 per cent. of private industry is controlled by, foreign nationals. The result is that there has been and still is considerable concern about this which expressed itself in no uncertain way at the last Canadian General Election. I do not think that public feeling here would be any different if similar circumstances applied. Investment abroad is


a respectable phrase, but we should bear in mind that when foreign investments are made here we are increasing our overseas indebtedness. While, when the original investment is made, our gold and dollar reserves will feel the benefit, we are at the same time building up a long-term and permanent future outgoing.
This problem has been faced by both Canada and Australia, as well as by a number of smaller European countries. It is control and not investment which is the problem. It is interesting to note the way in which the matter has been dealt with in other countries. For example, foreign investment is allowed in Nestlé's and in Phillips lamps, but steps have been taken to ensure that the control of these companies remains in either Switzerland or Holland, respectively.
In this country, there is a fear that where vast foreign control in a company exists, the company may not pull its weight in the financial economy of the Commonwealth in times of stress or that British concerns may be prevented from competing wholeheartedly in export markets where they are in competition with other sections of the controlling group or with other concerns in the country where control is exercised. I take no narrow view of this. I submit that either of the extreme attitudes is wrong. It would be wrong, on the one hand, to allow the whole of British industry to be controlled abroad. On the other hand, it would be wrong to prevent the natural flow of capital from one country to another. Foreign investment should be encouraged, but foreign control should be scrutinised with great care. Somewhere between these two extremes of attitudes, we should be wise to draw the line.
It is far wiser to decide now which companies we would keep under our control for strategic reasons and what proportion of our industries we should retain. No doubt, there will be many other bids in the future, but I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not be put in the position of having to make ad hoc decisions in each case. Where a company has been restricting dividends—

Mr. Lipton: The whole force of the hon. Member's argument seems to indicate that he will abstain from voting. Will he put our anxieties at rest and please announce that?

Mr. Cleaver: To put hon. Members' anxieties at rest, I shall support the Government, for the simple reason that they have no grounds on which to refuse this bid and, as I shall show, we should think about the major problem now and not deal with it ad hoc in the future when any particular case arises.
It is undesirable that these bids should be made public before the Chancellor has had an opportunity to consider them and express his views. It is most unfortunate when this happens. Prices on the Stock Exchange may vary, and if the Chancellor finds that for strategic reasons he has to refuse permission, loss may be sustained or harm may be done unfairly to many shareholders. I do not think either that the management of a public company should have this sort of thing going on unless it knows what is happening. This again involves the question of how we should treat nominee shareholders. Perhaps the debate does not cover that point but I think that it is an important one.
It is right that this matter should be discussed now, and that is why I am speaking on it. I am sure that, quite genuinely, there is feeling in the country about this, and I am sure that the House is the proper place for all points of view to be expressed, but I do not think that we should take a narrow view. I do not think that we should stop the purchase of the Ford shares. I do not see that the purchase will do the industry any harm or the people in it. It will certainly result in large amounts of capital being put in the company to develop it, which will not only provide employment in other areas where the Ford Company has already established itself but will continue to provide employment in Dagenham.

Mr. Richard Marsh: Can the hon. Member answer one question which is worrying some of us? Since he agrees that one must draw the line somewhere in the take-over of British companies by foreign concerns, and since he does not accept the 100 per cent. takeover, where is the line to be drawn if


the hon. Member does not go below 100 per cent.?

Mr. Cleaver: Fords has control now, but this major problem should be considered by the Government to decide where they think control should go. I do not think that important concerns which have a major effect on the lives of people in this country should be controlled by overseas interests.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay: I am not sure whether the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Cleaver) was written in Dagenham or in Detroit, but it was a little difficult to follow which side he was on. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer has never had much reputation for being a successful defender of British interests. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I cannot believe that many hon. Members on either side of the House are satisfied with the hasty and sketchy fashion in which the Government have dealt with this problem. We are, after all, discussing a proposal involving the expenditure of £130 million, and, indeed, £270 million if we count in the whole Ford expansion plan, involving 50,000 workers and a large section of one of our key industries.
The Government tell us that they had no discussion at all on this issue with Mr. Henry Ford when he was in London a month ago. Therefore, if they believe the denials that Mr. Ford was making up to 20th October that nothing of this kind was contemplated, then Ministers can apparently have known nothing about this proposal until the beginning of last week. They received application formally only on Friday, yet we are expected to believe that all these complicated and international issues have been fully considered and adequate assurance received from the Ford Company apparently by this morning.
Why did we have to have all this haste? Why was it not possible to wait at least until Parliament had expressed an opinion about this issue? Was it really that the Chancellor was so desperately anxious for this addition to his gold and dollar reserves? I hope not. I hope that there was no implied warning in the Ford statement that if this did not go through then perhaps the expansion

might not continue. At any rate, I think that most people in this country believe that this problem deserves far more consideration than the Government appear to have given it.
It is, of course, desirable that we should have foreign investment, American investment, in this country, but one cannot just brush aside everybody's anxieties about this merely by pointing out that obvious fact. There are, first, deep anxieties about employment, and it is very natural that there should be in the present state of the motor industry. I happened to have a letter from a constituent of mine this morning telling how another American firm which employed him and others in London only a fortnight ago suddenly dismissed one-third of its staff because a gentleman had arrived from Chicago—Chicago in this case, not Detroit—and that action was taken contrary to the wishes of the whole British management. One is constantly hearing stories of this kind, and that is why ordinary people have anxieties about this kind of control.
I am not, of course, suggesting that Fords has any intention of under-using its capacity at Dagenham or elsewhere, or holding back on the absolutely vital expansion on Merseyside. But neither Fords nor the Chancellor has really done anything in public seriously to allay the fears that exist in the country. I can assure the Chancellor that the constant repetition of the words "flexibility" and "co-ordination", so far from allaying fears, positively aggravates them. The public assurances that the Chancellor gave today about employment policy—one could hardly imagine anything vaguer—seem to me to mean almost nothing at all. The Chancellor, after three statements, has still failed to answer the question which ordinary people are asking: why is it that Fords, if it does not plan to make any major changes, is willing to spend £130 million to get control of these shares? Until that has been answered, people will continue to feel anxieties about the transaction.
There are also legitimate fears and anxieties about exports and about the foreign exchange earnings of the Ford Company in future. We have been given a rather hazy assurance about exports in Europe. Why were the words "in


Europe" deliberately inserted in the assurance? Again, we do not know; we simply have not the information to judge. I do not believe that these anxieties are altogether fanciful.
I remember that in the first few years after the war certain large foreign companies which operated in this country so arranged their financial affairs that the whole foreign exchange earnings of their exports from the United Kingdom—and, incidentally, all the tax revenue which they ought to have been paying—were not coming into the hands of the British Treasury. It took a long, laborious and tough negotiation to reach a satisfactory arrangement with the firms in that case. Are we really expected to believe that the Chancellor has gone into all this aspect of the matter, too, only since last Friday? Frankly, I find it very difficult to believe.
Also, there is a major defence aspect in all this which has not been greatly mentioned today. After all, Fords and Vauxhall together represent a large section of the vehicle production capacity of this country, which is a large part of our defence potential in industrial terms. It is certainly true that both these companies co-operated with the Ministry of Supply as loyally as any British companies during the war, and, incidentally, did so before the United States came into the war, but there were some foreign companies in this country of which one could not have said that quite so emphatically.
Did the Chancellor really have time to go into this aspect of the matter? He has had a very short period in which to do it. He says that he has assurances on all this, but we do not know in the least—I must confess that I cannot understand—what sort of sanction he means to apply if these assurances are not kept after a certain period of years. The very fact that one of the assurances is that Sir Patrick Hennessy is to remain chairman of the company throws doubt on the other assurances. I am very glad that he is to remain chairman, but, presumably, that is not a permanent appointment; and if all the assurances operate for only a few years ahead, they do not have any great value.
The real issue before us, as the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Lindsay) said, is whether we are prepared to allow a

major part of a key British industry to fall under total foreign control. That is a question different from the issue of foreign investment or participation, which all of us on this side of the House welcome. I do not know whether the Chancellor remembers his immediate predecessor agreeing, in the debates about British Aluminium, that there was a great difference in those controversies between participation and control. We cannot allow foreign control of major firms and major industries in this country.
Even the Chancellor this afternoon said vaguely that there must be a limit, but he does not seem to have the slightest idea of what that limit is, or on what principle the Government will make decisions on further applications of this kind. Indeed, some of the Chancellor's statements today implied that in no circumstances would he use his powers to withhold permission in this sort of application.
I ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government have thought out the principles of policy according to which they will or will not grant permission in other cases of this kind. Will he explain tonight what those principles are? Do the Government know by what principles these things are governed? If we do not know, I am bound to ask whether the Government would take no action if some German interests were buying total control of I.C.I., or if they found that the French aircraft industry was buying control of Rolls-Royce, or the American steel industry of the Steel Company of Wales—[HON. MEMBERS: "Or the Russians."] We will not say the Russians, but if the Japanese were buying control of the British Motor Corporation would the Government still take no action in those circumstances?
It seems to us that in those circumstance's a British Government would be bound to intervene on political, economic, social and defence grounds. Do the Government agree with that and, if so, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us so? We do not know what the Government policy is on these issues and the Chancellor sounded as though he himself did not know and had had no time to conclude what he thought. One even wondered whether he had had sufficient


time to collect information on which to reach a proper and considered judgment.
Therefore, while we hope to see the Ford Motor Company continue its valuable investment and its very important industrial expansion in this country, I hope that the House will register a protest against the Government's failure to secure any proper safeguards and against the whole hurried, casual and off-hand manner in which they have dealt with this extremely important issue.

9.25 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Reginald Maudling): There has been a rather noticeable difference between the arguments put forward from the back benches opposite and from the Front Bench. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which side?"] It has been apparent that a number of hon. Members on the back benches opposite—[HON. MEMBERS: "And the other side."]—are wholly opposed to the Government approving or accepting this transaction. They have made clear the reasons—which I do not accept—why they take that point of view, but we have not had that clarity from the Front Bench opposite. The Front Bench speakers approached these matters with same discretion and possibly more experience. They contented themselves with saying, in the one case, that they have not enough information, and, in the other, that we acted too hastily.
I was unable, from the speech of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), to discover any reason why my right hon. and learned Friend should have rejected this offer. In fact, he was very careful not to give any such reason. He complained about the hasty, and I think he called it sketchy, fashion in which my right hon. and learned Friend dealt with this application. That is not a normal complaint about Government, and particularly Treasury, action, I confess, but he did not give any convincing reasons, or put forward any convincing arguments, showing how my right hon. and learned Friend could have acted differently.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about the failure of my right hon. and learned Friend to obtain convincing—I think that the word was "watertight"—safeguards, but several of his hon. Friends pointed out that in matters like employment policy, or the future expansion of the

industry, or how far it will go, watertight safeguards are not obtainable. No one, either here or in America, can guarantee what will be the future market for motor cars, what shape it will take, or what the movements will be.
It is clear that my right hon. and learned Friend, in obtaining the assurances to which he referred, was obtaining assurances as far reaching and as satisfactory as could be obtained, and which were certainly adequate to justify his action in saying that he would not withhold approval for this transaction if the shareholders decided to accept this or another offer.
I think that the debate has been concerned with two matters. First, the general principle of foreign investment in the United Kingdom. Secondly, how this general principle should apply to the Ford Motor Company case, in particular. I want to say something about both those matters, because we can surely only judge our decision in the Ford case against the general background of policy and in the light of the effect this decision will have on our general policy and our general interest in international investment as a whole.
Surely, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) said, we in this country should be the last people in the world to impede the international flow of capital. Surely we should be the last people to do anything that puts barriers in the way of the movement of capital through the world to those areas where it is likely to be most fruitful.

Mr. Lipton: Tell that to the Common Market.

Mr. Maudling: I do not understand the point of that intervention, nor, I think, does the hon. Gentleman himself.
In a world which is starved of capital, where we all surely have a pressing interest to ensure that capital is employed as fruitfully as possible, this is pre-eminently a time when we should stimulate the international movement of capital and not try to hold it back.
After all, we have been pioneers in this matter of international investment. A great deal of our prosperity has been built up on international investment. A great deal of our current prosperity continues to be built on, and sustained by,


this, and I think that we are plainly recognising and emphasising the duty that we have to expand our investment, particularly in the under-developed areas of the world.
Surely, at this time, we should take a lead not in trying to impede the flow of international investment, or the movement of capital, but in trying to stimulate the movement of capital to areas where it will be the most fruitful, bearing in mind that private capital will not go where it is not welcome. I say to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite who say that they are not anxious to see American capital come to this country that there are many places for American capital to go, including the United States itself.

Mr. Lipton: And Cuba.

Mr. Maudling: The hon. Member is not improving as he advances. There are some people who say that the United States is itself the most under-developed area in the world. Certainly the opportunities of profitable investment there, with relative political security, are considerable. United States capital, which we all want to see move across the world, producing fertilising results as it goes among world economies, will move only to countries where it feels it is welcome and can reasonably operate.
This country has benefited immensely from this international movement of capital. We have benefited, first, from the investment we ourselves have made abroad. The contribution of our overseas investments, in terms of dividend interest to our balance of payments, is measured in hundreds of millions of pounds, and is a major factor in our balance of payments accounts, the building up of assets of British companies and enterprises abroad, and a major addition to the capital strength of this country.

Mr. Austen Albu: Nonsense.

Mr. Maudling: It is not nonsense; it is fact. If the hon. Member studies the matter he will find that that is so.

Mr. Albu: Has the right hon. Gentleman any evidence to controvert the statement that a similar sum invested at home

would not merely have improved our balance of payments but would have prevented us from getting into the appalling condition in which we are having to restrict our expenditure?

Mr. Maudling: I gather that the hon. Member would rather invest at home than abroad. A case can sometimes be made for saying that marginally it is better to invest at home than abroad, but I thought that the balance of opinion among hon. Members opposite was in favour of overseas investment, by other countries here and in other countries by us. I believe it is to the interest of our economy and of people employed in this country. The right hon. Gentleman made reference to some recent investments in the United States. He picked the examples most fashionable, for obvious reasons. He did not mention companies like Bowaters, with its very big investment in the United States, or Courtaulds, or E.M.I., and some of our insurance companies. They have very large and important investments which, as I understand it, are as welcome in the United States as they are valuable to this country.
Although I have not got the exact figures for which one of my hon. Friends asked, in general our investment in the United States is of the same order of magnitude as their investment here.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Is there evidence of our having a 100 per cent. interest of half of any major industry in the United States?

Mr. Maudling: I cannot think of our having 100 per cent. of half of any major industry. I say that as far as we can judge our investment in America is about the same size as their investment here, and it is of great value to both countries.

Mr. Jay: When the right hon. Gentleman says that the investment is about the same size, he is being extremely misleading unless he points out that it is a totally different proportion of the total amount of capital investment.

Mr. Maudling: I am not being misleading. Incoming investment has been of immense value to us, for several reasons. It gives British industry access to research and "know-how" which we would not otherwise have. The research


effort in American industry is much bigger than ours, because American industry is much bigger than ours, and it can afford to spend much more than we can in total on research and development throughout industry.

Mr. Edelman: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the techniques of the British motor industry are inferior to those of the American motor industry?

Mr. Maudling: I was not saying anything of the sort. I was saying that because of its much greater size American industry naturally has a much greater research and development capacity. It must be eight times as big as ours in terms of national product. It is of great value to this country to have access to that research, just as it is of great value to have access to the know-how of many American businesses.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: rose——

Mr. Maudling: I think I ought not to give way again.
In addition to access to "know-how" and research results, there is the provision of productive capacity and export capacity for Britain which arises from foreign investment in this country. These great firms not only bring "know-how" and research results, but capital which builds up British industry and British exports. Also, we must not forget that this foreign investment increases our capacity to lend overseas. At the moment we cannot lend abroad anything like as much as we should like to lend.
Whether it be to help the developing countries, whether it be to expand suppliers' credits for heavy capital exports, our ability to lend overseas is clearly limited by our ability to earn a current surplus, but the more investment flows to this country from overseas, the greater our capacity to lend abroad. That in itself is extremely valuable for the British economy and, with an item like Fords, in which the sums involved are so very great, that makes a contribution not merely to our reserves position, but also to our long-term overseas lending capacity.
I should have thought that hon. Members opposite who so often stress the need for capital from this country flowing to other parts of the world should

welcome this for business reasons as a new way of strengthening our lending capacity from this country.

Mr. John Morris: Is the right hon. Gentleman now suggesting on that argument that every industry in this country should be sold to America by pieces?

Mr. Maudling: Of course, I am not suggesting anything of the sort. I am making a serious point that increased investment in this country strengthens our capacity to export elsewhere.
If we want to consider the value to this country of in-coming investment from America in particular, we have only to name a certain number of firms established in this country, some wholly owned and some partly owned by America. There is Esso, which is wholly owned; Ford of Dagenham is partly owned, Vauxhall which has been a wholly owned subsidiary of General Motors for many years. Kodaks, Monsanto, Woolworths, Heinz and many other companies we could name which have been of great benefit to this country and those industries and to the employees in those industries. They have also been of great benefit to the exporting capacity of the country and of great benefit to development districts.
For example, what would have been the position of Scotland if it were not for the inflow of American firms and capital there in the last ten years? They have brought new jobs and techniques and also, hon. Members will agree, very good labour-management relations. When things are said about American labour relations and their effect on management at Dagenham. I should remind hon. Members that the labour relations in Scotland have been very good. Both sides, to the best of my knowledge, are thoroughly satisfied with one another.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why he persuaded I.C.I. to transfer its factory from Cornwall to Scotland, the factory of a British firm, and is doing nothing in return for my constituency of Falmouth and Camborne?

Mr. Maudling: I doubt whether that arises on the decision on the Ford case.


We can give plenty of examples in Scotland—Caterpillar Tractors, Minneapolis-Honeywell, International Business Machines, Remington-Rand, to name only a few—of the companies which have gone to Scotland bringing new techniques and employment. Surely this is to be welcomed as a process which both sides of the House should commend and try to see sustained.

Mr. Pavitt: rose——

Mr. Maudling: I have given way a great deal. It is not, I hope, seriously doubted that American investment in this country is a good thing, but, in view of many of the things which have been said by hon. Members opposite today, I thought it worthwhile to restate the case, which seems overwhelming, for support and encouragement of American investment in this country, making clear to our American friends that they are welcome here, particularly in Scotland, Ulster, the North-East Coast and other areas. For those reasons there should be no serious dispute either as to the value to our economy of American investment, or as to the difficulties which could arise if American capital flowed into the hands of some of our competitors.
This is a very important point, because America is looking upon Europe as a field for the investment of industrial capital, "know-how" and research results. That capital will either come to this country, or go to some of our competitors. It is very important indeed to encourage American capital to come to this country. It would be an act of folly to push American capital away from here into the hands of some of our competitors.

Mr. Collick: That is not the point.

Mr. Maudling: It is exactly the point. If the hon. Gentleman does not yet realise that, it means that he has not understood a word which has been said.

Mr. Collick: The right hon. Gentleman is completely dodging the issue. There has been no mention today from these benches of any objection to American capital coming here. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The objection is to 100 per cent. control. That is what the

right hon. Gentleman should direct himself to.

Mr. Maudling: I will come to that point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I am just coming to that point. Against this background of general policy, how should we judge the Ford case? Two arguments have been advanced to suggest that it would be wrong to approve this application. Our general policy, obviously, would be to approve the application on the general basis that it is a good thing to attract American capital to this country. If people object to our decision, there must be special reasons in this case why we should refuse it.
The two reasons which have been advanced are: first, that this will give the United States control over a large share of a vital British industry; and, secondly, that the development of the British Ford Company may be prejudiced. Those seem to me to be the two very important arguments that have been advanced. I want to deal with both of them.
The question of American control over a large share of a vital industry is a serious matter of policy which cannot be brushed aside; nor did my right hon. and learned Friend in any way try to brush it aside in his statement or his speech. It is also obviously a complicated matter, because we have interests in both directions. We have interests in the position of our industry and the position of incoming investors. We also have a great interest in our outflowing investment and in the position we will hold in the industries of other countries.
We should be unwise to try to lay down a rigid rule in these matters. If we laid down a rigid rule, as the right hon. Member for Battersea, North rather suggested that we should, to cover every case, it would be found to be so restrictive as to do positive damage to us in many other parts of the world. Therefore, I think that we must follow my right hon. and learned Friend's line in saying that we must examine these cases individually.
My right hon. and learned Friend made quite clear in his statement that the decision he has taken in this case does not prejudge the facts in any other


case. As my right hon. and learned Friend said:
In another one, the balance might point the other way. There may well be cases where proposals might seem attractive from a commercial point of view, but, nevertheless, it may be necessary to refuse consent to transfer of control for reasons of national security or the significance of a particular firm or industry to our economic life.
That is the principle upon which we must operate. It is clearly the principle which he will apply in any particular case.
In this case, it does not arise because, despite what has been said so often by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, this is not a question of transfer of control, because control of Fords Dagenham has been in American hands since the firm started. As my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Lindsay) said, quite rightly, control has always been in American hands. This is not a question in any way of transfer of control. It is a question of transfer of ownership of shares, which is quite different.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: rose——

Mr. Maudling: I am coming on to the point about the minority shareholding.
The second point was that the development of the United Kingdom Ford Company might be prejudiced. The American company already has the power, with its 54 per cent. holding, to restrict expansion and exports. With a 100 per cent. holding it will have a much greater incentive to expand exports. That is the fundamental point at issue.
It is true that minority shareholders—especially if organised, which is not always easy—have certain rights, but their rights of self-protection are very narrowly defined rights. To my knowledge, no one has ever suggested that a minority has the right to control the operational, management and investment policy of a company.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Does the right hon. Gentleman really suggest that it would be open to a British company that was not 100 per cent. American-controlled to run down employment here in the interests of an American company?

Mr. Maudling: I say that these management matters—sales policy, investment policy and policy as to numbers employed—are controlled by the majority. That is the point of having a majority. This is a very important

point. At the moment, the Ford Company of America shareholders would have the right to restrict the expansion and investment programme of the British company. It now has 128 million reasons for not doing so which it did not have before.
We are asked by the party opposite: what are the Ford Company's motives in wanting 100 per cent. control as against 54 per cent. control. I think that those motives are quite clear, and have been made clear. In the first place, it thinks that this is a good investment for its money——

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: And if it does not think so?

Mr. Maudling: I would not know of the Ford Company making a bad investment. Seriously, the Ford people would not invest £128 million in a bad investment. I might add that if they listened to what some hon. Members opposite say about the British motor industry they might think it a bad investment. They would not invest here at all if they listened to what was said by some hon. Members opposite. In fact, if they listened too closely, they might withdraw investments and then, indeed. I would worry.
I say that this investment by the Ford Company of America is a great vote of confidence in the future prosperity of the British motor industry, and cannot be taken as anything——

Mr. Walter Monslow: Then can the hon. Gentleman explain why it is that there is a great contraction in the motor industry in Detroit, as I read a few days ago?

Mr. Maudling: There is a great contraction in the motor industry all over the world because there is a contraction of sales, but, despite that contraction, the Ford Company thinks it worth while to put £128 million into the country. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Because of the long-term prospects of expansion.
Then there is the phrase "operational flexibility". It is quite obvious what that means. The Ford Company sees its overseas operations growing, and the progress of the Ford Company as a whole is also of great importance to the progress of the individual subsidiaries of the Ford Company. It wants to be able


to plan its operations, so the Ford Company as a whole has to be efficient, and that cannot but be in the interests not only of the parent company but of the members of the group.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham made the point that the Ford Company might, for example, want to go in for some operations in this country which, while providing activity and employment here might, in terms of the company, be less profitable to it. But, in deciding where to carry out the expansion the company will be considerably influenced if, in Germany, it holds 99 per cent. of that Company and here holds only 54 per cent.
Surely, it is quite clear that if the Ford Company is deciding where to put its new investment, it is bound to show preference for where it owns the whole of a company, because it is then getting the whole return. But with 100 per cent. ownership here comparable with that in Germany, the disadvantage under which the United Kingdom company at present labours will be removed, and the scales will no longer be weighted in favour of the German company.
The right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) made a rather strange remark about the danger, under this arrangement, of Dagenham being sacrificed to Cologne. Surely, the opposite is the fact—it will avoid that happening. The fact is that people do not invest £128 million in order to restrict the activity of the company in which they are investing——

Mr. H. Wilson: Is it not a recent fact that the Daily Mail invested quite a substantial amount in the News Chronicle? Was not that with the idea of restricting the activities of the firm taken over?

Mr. Maudling: If I understand the motives correctly, it was with the purpose of increasing the total output of a combined operation.
The fact is that, as my right hon. and learned Friend has said, after this operation the United Kingdom Ford Company will be a bigger element in the Ford organisation than all its other overseas units put together. Surely, it is foolish to blink at that fact, and to disregard it. It must be in the interests of United Kingdom Ford that the importance of developing this company in

every way will bulk much larger in the minds of the people in Detroit than it would if they were owning only 54 per cent. of the equity. Surely, in this competition we can feel confident that the United Kingdom will win.
The employment that Fords can give in this country will depend upon the sales of Ford products in competitive world markets, and that will depend upon the increase in their facilities and the amount of capital they have available. I should have thought it would be crystal clear that the more American capital which comes into British Ford and the greater interest that Detroit is likely to take in British Ford the larger will be the increase in the opportunities for the British company to expand and, therefore, for increased opportunities of employment for British people.

Mr. Driberg: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what exactly is meant by this phrase "employment policy"? Does it mean employment level, or is the assurance about employment policy one of those assurances which he said earlier were not watertight?

Mr. Maudling: I said at the beginning of my speech that no company can ever give an assurance about the level of employment because it depends on ability to sell its products in a competitive market. There is a great difference between employment level and employment policy. Clearly, it means employment policy and not employment level.
The purpose of this operation is, as Fords say, to make what from the Company's point of view is a good investment, to make sure that it brings all its overseas operations into one system so that it can operate it as efficiently as possible, and so that, as a result, there can be no doubt that this means increased opportunities for the British Ford Company. This is a clear declaration, in the most practical terms of cash across the Exchanges, of the American company's confidence in the British motor industry.
If my right hon. and learned Friend were to decide to refuse this application, as some hon. Members opposite want him to do, he would be doing great damage to the Ford Company of England and certainly great damage to United States investment in this country.


As I said when opening my speech, American investment in this country has been important, remains important and will continue for a long time to be a very important matter in the expansion of our industry and of our exports. To take any decision other than that taken by my right hon. and learned Friend would be to damage the company, its employees and the general prospects of the British economy. I am sure that, for that reason, the House will support him in his decision.

Mr. Lipton: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer a simple question?

Does he really think that this is a proud day for Britain?

Mr. William Yates: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the Ford Motor Company has decided to put this money into Britain because it realises that all its money and interest will never be nationalised for the next fifteen years?

Question put, That this House do now adjourn:—

The House divided: Ayes 160, Noes 256.

Division No. 5.]
AYES
[9.59 p.m.


Ainsley, William
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Pavitt, Laurence


Albu, Austen
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Peart, Frederick


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Pentland, Norman


Awbery, Stan
Hilton, A. V.
Prentice, R. E.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Holman, Peroy
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Baird, John
Houghton, Douglas
Probert, Arthur


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Hoy, James H.
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Beaney, Alan
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Randall, Harry


Blackburn, F.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rankin, John


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Redhead, E. C.


Bowles, Frank
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Reid, William


Boyden, James
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Reynolds, G. W.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Jeger, George
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Betper)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Ross, William


Callaghan, James
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Cliffe, Michael
Kelley, Richard
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Collick, Percy
Kenyon, Clifford
Skeffington, Arthur


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Small, William


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
King, Dr. Horaoe
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Cronin, John
Lawson, George
Snow, Julian


Crossman, R. H. S.
Ledger, Ron
Sorensen, R. W.


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Darling, George
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Stonehouse, John


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lipton, Marcus
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Deer, George
Loughlin, Charles
Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Swain, Thomas


Diamond, John
MacColl, James
Sylvester, George


Dodds, Norman
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Symonds, J. B.


Donnelly, Desmond
Mackie, John
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Driberg, Tom
McLeavy, Frank
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Edelman, Maurice
Manuel, A. C.



Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Tomney, Frank


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Marsh, Richard
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Finch, Harold
Mason, Roy
Wainwright, Edwin


Fletcher, Eric
Millan, Bruce
Warbey, William


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Monslow, Walter
Weitzman, David


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Moody, A. S.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Ginsburg, David
Morris, John
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Gooch, E. G.
Moyle, Arthur
Whitlock, William


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mulley, Frederick
Wigg, George


Greenwood, Anthony
Neal, Harold
Wilkins, W. A.


Grey, Charles
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Willey, Frederick


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Phillp (Derby, S.)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Oliver, G. H.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Oram, A. E.
Woof, Robert


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Oswald, Thomas
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Paget, R. T.



Hannan, William
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hayman, F. H.
Pargiter, G. A.
Mr. Howell and Dr. Broughton.


Healey, Denis
Parker, John (Dagenham)





NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Atkins, Humphrey
Barter, John


Allason, James
Balniel, Lord
Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)


Alport, Rt. Hon. C. J. M.
Barber, Anthony
Beamish, Col. Tufton


Arbuthnot, John
Barlow, Sir John
Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.)




Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Grimond, J.
Neave, Airey


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Berkeley, Humphry
Gurden, Harold
Noble, Michael


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Bidgood, John C.
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Biggs-Davison, John
Hare, Rt. Hon. John
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Bishop, F. P.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Partridge, E.


Black, Sir Cyril
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Bossom, Clive
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Maoolesf'd)
Percival, Ian


Bourne-Arton, A.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Pitman, I. J.


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Hay, John
Pitt, Miss Edith


Box, Donald
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Pott, Percivall


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Boyle, Sir Edward
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)


Braine, Bernard
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hendry, Forbes
Ramsden, James


Brooman-White, R.
Hiley, Joseph
Rawlinson, Peter


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Bryan, Paul
Hirst, Geoffrey
Rees, Hugh


Bullard, Denys
Hobson, John
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Holland, Philip
Renton, David


Burden, F. A.
Hollingworth, John
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Holt, Arthur
Ridsdale, Julian


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hopkins, Alan
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Hornby, R. P.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Roots, William


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Cary, Sir Robert
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Russell, Ronald


Channon, H. P. G.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Scott-Hopkins, James


Chataway, Christopher
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Seymour, Leslie


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Sharples, Richard


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Iremonger, T. L.
Shaw, M.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Shepherd, William


Cleaver, Leonard
Jackson, John
Simon, Sir Jocelyn


Cole, Norman
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Collard, Richard
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Cooke, Robert
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Cooper, A. E.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Kimball, Marous
Stevens, Geoffrey


Cordle, John
Kirk, Peter
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Corfield, F. V.
Kitson, Timothy
Stodart, J. A.


Costain, A. P.
Lagden, Godfrey



Coulson, J. M.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Courtney, Cdr. Athony
Leather, E. H. C.
Storey, Sir Samuel


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Leavey, J. A.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Critchley, Julian
Leburn, Gilmour
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)


Cunningham, Knox
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Tapsell, Peter


Curran, Charles
Lilley, F. J. P.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Currie, G. B. H.
Lindsay, Martin
Temple, John M.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Thatcher, Mrs. Margart


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n C'dfield)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Deedes, W. F.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


de Ferranti, Basil
Longbottom, Charles
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Loveys, Walter H.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Doughty, Charles
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Turner, Colin


Drayson, G. B.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


du Cann, Edward
McAdden, Stephen
Van Straubenzee, W. R.


Duncan, Sir James
MacArthur, Ian
Vane, W. M. F.


Eden, John
McLaren, Martin
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John


Emery, Peter
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Wade, Donald


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
McMaster, Stanley R.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek


Errington, Sir Eric
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Wall, Patrick


Fell, Anthony
Maddan, Martin
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Fisher, Nigel
Maginnis, John E.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Maitland, Sir John
Watts, James


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Freeth, Denzil
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Whitelaw, William


Gammans, Lady
Marshall, Douglas
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gardner, Edward
Marten, Neil
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Gibson-Watt, David
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Woodhouse, C. M.


Glover, Sir Douglas
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Woodnutt, Mark


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Mawby, Ray
Woollam, John


Goodhart, Philip
Mills, Stratton
Worsley, Marcus


Goodhew, Victor
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Gough, Frederick
Montgomery, Fergus



Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Morgan, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Green, Alan
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Mr. Edward Wakefield and


Gresham Cooke, R.
Nabarro, Gerald
Mr. Finlay.

Orders of the Day — MEAT (STAINING AND STERILISATION)

10.9 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Meat (Staining and Sterilization) Regulations, 1960 (S.I. 1960, No. 1268), dated 21st July, 1960, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th July, in the last Session of Parliament, be annulled.
I am sure that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will not be surprised that we are praying against these Regulations. In fact, he might have thought us somewhat ungracious if we had not prayed against them. These Regulations are consequential to a debate on a Prayer we had some time ago. Following that debate, the Government subsequently revoked the Order in question and undertook to bring in a new one. The first point with which I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to deal is this. Why has there been such an inordinate delay in introducing this Statutory Instrument? We debated the earlier Regulation concerning staining and sterilisation as long ago as 26th February, 1959, yet it is not until November this year that we get the Statutory Instrument which we were promised.
This is quite intolerable for two reasons. First, all that the Parliamentary Secretary's predecessor asked for was a little further time for consultation. More than 18 months have passed, and we cannot consider that a little time for further consultation. This is endemic in his Department. If the hon. Gentleman consults HANSARD, he will discover that he has commented on this matter from a more independent position in the past. When a comparatively simple job like this is voluntarily imposed on the Department, it should be much more expeditious in producing the Statutory Instrument which we were promised.
The second reason why we must criticise this delay is that these are important Regulations. We had provision for the staining and sterilising of meat under the Defence Regulations. We had the Statutory Instrument that was introduced in February, 1959, and since then we have had no protection at all. This is quite

intolerable. The whole country nowadays accepts the importance of clean food Regulations. These are Regulations which will impose obligations on local authorities that they welcome. I am sure that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will accept the fact that there is a very heavy burden on him to explain to the House why the country has been without this protection over this considerable period, and why a matter, which was regarded as being no more than an occasion for further consultation, should take this inordinate time.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary will recall that two points of criticism were made when we debated the previous Regulations on a Prayer. Hon. Members on this side of the House spoke in favour of the housewife, the human consumer, and hon. Members opposite spoke up for the pets.

Mr. F. A. Burden: Why not?

Mr. Willey: The hon. Member is entitled to determine his priorities, but in fact neither he nor myself received satisfaction under those Regulations The pets—to take the hon. Member's first priority—received no satisfaction either. I remember that the hon. Member made an impassioned plea for the kennels. So far as I can see—and perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will enlighten me about this—the only pets, if they can be so designated, and I think that it is arguable—the only non-human creatures which may apparently benefit from these Regulations; are trout. We have the significant words "or trout farm" introduced into the Regulations, but I do not see anything about kennels. I expect hon. Members opposite, therefore, to make themselves heard again in criticising the Regulations.
That was one of the reasons why the former Regulations were taken back to see whether it was possible to provide Regulations less invidious to pets. We on this side raised a substantial point. As several of my hon. Friends pointed out, the Association of Public Health Inspectors believed that the provision should be for staining and sterilising action. I welcome the present Regulations as an improvement concerning sterilisation. I would say, in passing, that this is a reflection on knackers' yards, because we know that in their


case the provision is staining or sterilisation, because often they do not have the facilities for sterilisation. At least, it is a happy situation to accept the position now that all slaughterhouses can provide for sterilisation. That is progress.
As I understand the Association of Public Health Inspectors, however, they believed, and so argued at the time, that the provision should be for both staining and for sterilisation. The safeguard of staining is obvious. I recognise the disadvantages of staining from some points of view. Some owners of pets may not like buying stained meat. With all respect to the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden), however, we have to put the human consumer as top priority. I should have thought that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary would again accept the burden that he must satisfy the House that it was not possible to provide for both staining and sterilisation.
Those are the matters which we raised on the earlier Prayer. I accept that the new Regulations are an improvement on the earlier ones—in several respects they are much more specific—but we must remain disappointed that we do not have provision for staining as mandatory. The hon. Gentleman's predecessor undertook to have staining as mandatory. The Regulations provide for sterilisation as mandatory. The public health inspectors believed that both should be mandatory. That is not met by the Regulations. At least, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary should accept an obligation to inform us of the discussions he has held.
In the Regulations, we have the safeguard of consultation with the Food Hygiene Advisory Council. I should be obliged if the Joint Parliamentary Secretary would tell us, not only that consultations were held—we assume that—but that the Advisory Council agree with the Regulations as being the only effective steps that can at present be taken. I should also like to know whether, quite apart from the Advisory Council, in the light of the further consultations the Association of Public Health Inspectors is satisfied with the Regulations.
Behind these Regulations is the all-important question of inspection. This

is a matter we make no apology for raising again. I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us that progress is being made towards complete inspection. Until we get complete inspection, even such provisions as these cannot provide a proper safeguard.
I move the Prayer in this spirit. I am not advising my hon. Friends on this occasion to press the Government, in spite of their inadequacy, to withdraw the Regulations, because I should not like to feel responsible for the public not having this safeguard for such a long period. Let us have these Regulations. Let us have an assurance from the Government that there have been full consultations and that the bodies consulted are satisfied that this is as far as the Government can go. Let us have the further assurance that the Government intend not to rest content with these provisions but to re-examine them in due course and to provide an even more adequate safeguard.

10.19 p.m.

Sir Richard Glyn: I should like to deal with one or two of the points which have been raised by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey). I should like to deal first with his point that there has been a long delay in the consultation with the various parties. The hon. Member seemed to think that that was a point of criticism. I wonder whether he appreciates the number of parties whom the Minister is statutorily obliged to consult.
Has the hon. Member considered whether it is not the Government's duty to consult these bodies and, if I may put it crudely, not to dictate to them, and that consultation with a large number of bodies which may have widely different points of view, if it is to be properly and democratically done, must obviously involve a certain lapse of time? I, for one, am glad that the Government have not sought to impose upon the parties concerned a dictated decision without having given due consideration to the large number of points which no doubt have been raised with them.
At this point, I must declare that I have a very limited interest in this matter, because although I no longer own, exhibit or breed pet dogs of any kind, I have for many years been an


officer of the Kennel Club and of Cruft's International Dog Show, both of which organisations are concerned in this matter, though personally I am not.
I should like to take up the second point raised by the hon. Member which is that he suggests that his hon. Friends speak for human customers—and I think that he said the housewives are the human consumers—and that the objections on this side of the House were made on behalf of pets. It is fair to say that everyone, on both sides of the House, would agree that if there were any real evidence of any danger to health that consideration would immediately override all other considerations and all considerations of convenience or expense to pet lovers or pet owners or anybody else concerned.
My first point is the question whether or not there is really any evidence of danger to the human consumer in present circumstances. I have done my best to try to get what evidence there is on this point, which I believe to be a fundamental point of the utmost importance. As far as I can understand, the motivation behind the agitation—if I may so call it—for Regulations of this kind stems from a report made seven years ago by a committee which was to consider the sale of horse meat. That committee made a valuable report which was absolutely relevant to the facts at that time, but that was seven years ago and since that date two important things have happened which have changed the situation a good deal.
First, meat has become derationed, which means that there is now no temptation at all for any human being knowingly to consume unfit meat or knacker meat. The second relevant point is that bovine tuberculosis which seven years ago was the principal scourge has been virtually eradicated. I will not say that it has been completely eradicated, but we hope that it very soon will be. These two factors are worth consideration.
I have tried to ascertain what at present is the degree of risk to what the hon. Member for Sunderland, North rightly calls the human consumer. On 15th February this year I had a Written Answer from the then Minister of Health which gave figures for the outbreaks of food poisoning the causes of which were known for each of the previous five

years. I thouht that they would be relevant. These figures show that of the food poisoning outbreaks where the food concerned was known, an average of 56·6 per cent. were due to canned or processed meat which, of course, would not include unfit meat or knacker meat. A further 18·4 per cent. of outbreaks were due to reheated meat, which, again, would not include unfit meat or knacker meat, and fresh meat, which would include unfit meat and knacker meat, caused 1·7 only of the outbreaks. Therefore, from these figures it is clear that reheated meat caused about eleven times as many outbreaks as fresh meat and that processed and canned meat caused about 33 times as many outbreaks.
Reinforced by these figures, I pressed the Minister of Health of those days to give me any tangible evidence which his Department had of any illness or fatality in the last seven years which had been traced to knacker meat or unfit meat. I was informed that there had been one death. Naturally, we always regret any death, however caused. But one death, and one only, was provisionally attributed indirectly to infection caused in this way. It was believed that that infection was due to the use of a utensil for cutting up human food which had previously been used for cutting up knacker meat which might have been infected.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: I find it difficult to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. Why could not reheated pies contain knacker meat?

Sir R. Glyn: It would be entirely illegal for knacker meat to be sold for the purpose and for it to be made into pie meat. The evidence that that is not done would, I agree, not be very strong in the days when meat was rationed and when there was some temptation for manufacturers—perhaps the less responsible manufacturers—to act in this way. I say that there is no evidence that they did, but it is a possibility, for they would be under a temptation to do so.
But now that meat is no longer rationed, there really could be no possible temptation for manufacturers to do that, and I think they would be restricted by the very definite knowledge that should anyone be taken ill as a result of eating their pies their custom would immediately evaporate. They would have


every reason for using every possible device to ensure that they used the best and the safest meat for their pies. I can only say that the Ministry of Health had no evidence whatever that any such knacker meat in pies has led to any outbreak or, I am happy to say, to any death.
There was a good deal of evidence on this point, and I have been to some trouble to collect it because the House must pay great attention to the welfare of the consumer. I would not dream of speaking as I am doing if I had not fully satisfied myself that the present risk to the human consumer is practically negligible.
My next source of information—I think it should carry some weight—was the figures published annually by the Ministry of Health. The Ministry has a monthly bulletin, and every autumn it has an article on the causes of food poisoning during the preceding year. I have studied the articles for the last two years. In these articles, the Ministry gives a list of what it calls in rather technical language "the vehicles of infection and presumed causal agents." As I understand it, that is a medical way of saying "the sources of infection". The Ministry gives figures of food poisoning of all types for each of the last two years, and the figures make it perfectly clear that in the last two years infection attributed to canned and processed meat caused more than forty times as many food poisoning outbreaks as did infection due to fresh meat, which would, of course, include knacker meat.
I notice—I consider it a matter worthy of notice—that there is no move from the other side of the House to impose any controls or restrictions whatever on the sale of canned and processed meat which creates forty of these causes of infection to every one due to fresh meat, which might well include knacker meat. Those figures are relevant, and it is because of that overwhelming evidence that I feel I am justified and, indeed, that it is my duty to put forward not only the point of view of the pet owner, but the general importance of other health considerations.
The necessity to stain or sterilise knacker meat must have an effect of increasing the cost of meat sold for pets.

It cannot fail to do so. We have these doubts as to the effect on the numbers of outbreaks of food poisoning. That is a matter of opinion, but the figures I have quoted show that it cannot be very great. However, without doubt it would increase the cost to cat and dog lovers of their pets' food.
It has been estimated that the cost of sterilisation, which, I understand, certain hon. Members opposite favour, would be no less than 6d. a pound, which is a substantial sum, especially bearing in mind that so many pets are kept by retired people and pensioners who do not have a great deal of money to spare and whose pets are their principal companions and solace for old age.
When it is realised that even 2d. or 3d. a pound, which is likely to be the cost of staining, will probably cost a cat owner £1 a year, the owner of a terrier £3 a year, and the owner of a larger dog £5 a year, and when one remembers what has been said about the impossibility of increasing the dog licence fee by even a small sum and what has been said about the reaction on pensioners even if it were to be increased by only a few shillings, one has a measure of the effect of the cost of meat sterilisation, which some hon. Members opposite advocate, to every cat and dog owner in the country.
We have also to consider the effect on people who breed dogs and run boarding kennels. They would be grievously hit if sterilisation of knacker meat were introduced. It would have a crippling effect on them. If there were clear medical evidence that it was necessary, no one would resist it, but that evidence is so slight that staining is as far as any responsible Minister ought to go.
There is another factor which concerns countrymen, especially farmers. I refer to the important but unostentatious work which goes on so automatically that many people never notice it. It is done by the knackers who perform a vitally essential rôle in the pattern of our country life. It falls to them humanely to slaughter animal casualties, animals injured on farms, and to remove and dispose of the carcases of animals however killed.
Knackers are highly skilled men. They are able and have to be able to recognise


that real danger to health and to life—anthrax. One may say that exposure to anthrax is an occupational risk of knackers, and that would not be much of an exaggeration. Every year knackers recognise and report great numbers of cases of anthrax to the Minister. The bodies of the animals are burnt and buried in out-of-the-way, deeply dug graves which are protected so that no carnivore can possibly get to them and spread this killing disease.
If knackers are interfered with by over-severe restrictions and over-severe controls they will not be able to do their work. If they are so interfered with that it becomes impracticable for them to do this job which they are doing so well and so quietly; if they are prevented from collecting carcases from outlying farms, as they do at present, because it is uneconomical to do so, sooner or later an anthrax animal will not be identified. It will die without being burnt. Instead of being burnt and buried in quicklime 10 ft. deep, it will be buried in a shallow grave to which many small carnivorous animals will have access and there will be an outbreak of anthrax which will not merely give people tummy ache, but will kill them.
This risk to health should be seriously considered by the Government and by the Minister. This Regulation, which imposes the duty of staining, which will be an expense and a trouble, but which will be tolerable, is as far as any well-informed and conscientious Minister could possibly go on the evidence which I have quoted, and if there is any conflicting evidence I will be the first to listen to it.
I have done my best to collect medical evidence on this point, and on the balance of the evidence that I have found I cannot think that the Government would be justified in going one inch further than the Statutory Instrument which now lies before the House.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. George Darling: We have heard an extraordinary attack on these Regulations, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has pointed out, are long overdue. Because the previous Regulations which were introduced nearly two years ago were withdrawn, as well as the wartime Regulations,

there has been no protection against possible food poisoning resulting from the sale in shops or factories of meat which is unfit for human consumption. If these Regulations are agreed to, the protection will be greater than it has been for some time.
The argument of the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Sir R. Glyn) about knackers not being able to do their work if these Regulations are agreed to is rather far-fetched.

Sir R. Glyn: I was referring to sterilisation. Sterilisation is far more onerous on knackers than staining. Staining is tolerable but sterilisation is not.

Mr. Darling: That is what I mean. At this point I am standing by the Regulations. I will criticise them in a moment for not going far enough, but all the weight of medical evidence, the evidence from public health inspectors and such people, is in favour of sterilisation to ensure that diseased meat does not come into contact with other meat after it is moved out of the premises.
What disturbs me about the attitude of the hon. Gentleman is not so much the argument which he put Forward—to which I object anyhow—that very little illness is due to the consumption of unfit meat—I will come back to that point—but that he seems to have no regard to the fact that our standards in the handling of food in factories, cafes, restaurants and public houses and in food processing are so low compared with those in other countries.
I am concerned to see our standards raised. We cannot go beyond these Regulations tonight, but our standards in the handling of food must be raised. We are miles behind many other countries. We are miles behind the United States, for example, and the only way to improve our standards is by Regulations of this kind.
I do not say that everyone engaged in this kind of trade does bad things. The majority of those engaged in the meat trade, as we said many times during the Committee stage on the Slaughterhouses Bill, are good, honest, and efficient people who do a first-class job of work. We are concerned about the small minority who may not be as reputable as the best in their behaviour and standards. I am prepared to admit


that these Regulations will catch very few people, but we need them for the purpose of raising standards, and not only for the protection of health.
I was shocked—I think that is the word I should use—when the hon. Member went on to argue that these Regulations should be weakened, because if they are carried out as they are set down the cost of cat meat will rise. We probably should grumble when the price of anything is increased, but if the hon. Member is pleading for the old-age pensioner and the price of cat meat, the thing to do is not to prevent any improvement in our standards but to see that the old-age pensioner has a better pension so that he can afford to pay the increased price. I was shocked that the hon. Member should be so little concerned about our food standards.

Mr. Burden: I did not get the impression that my hon. Friend was not concerned about maintaining high standards of hygiene and inspection in food for human consumption.

Mr. Darling: I look upon these Regulations, as I am sure my hon. Friends do, not as merely dealing with one aspect of the meat trade, but as a contribution to the general improvement in standards of food handling. If we do not improve our standards, we shall never bring them to the level we want. The hon. Member did not seem concerned about improving our standards.

Sir R. Glyn: I am most concerned about improving the general standards of food handling, but I prefer to see more attention paid to the question of processed meat and tinned meat, which caused 33 times as much infection as did fresh meat—or reheated meat, which caused 11 times as much. Hon. Members opposite are straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. I never talked about inspection. That is a different matter. I was talking about the evidence against fresh meat.

Mr. Darling: The evidence the hon. Member put forward is not as sound as he thinks. He used the term "processed meat". As my right hon. Friend said, there is no indication, on the evidence that the hon. Member has put forward, that the processed meat was not contaminated meat before it went into

the processing factory. There is no evidence that the reheated meat was not contaminated meat in some way. In any case, the figures the hon. Member quoted from the Ministry of Health dealt with outbreaks of food poisoning and not individual cases of food poisoning, which can be very numerous indeed. I am speaking of cases where individuals have perhaps eaten contaminated pork pies—probably the only ones in a whole lot bad enough to affect health.
There was quite an outcry in Sheffield a little while ago about a man who was making pork pies for sale on football grounds in premises that had to be condemned—nobody knows to this day how he got his meat. That kind of thing can cause individual cases of food poisoning. It does not lead to an outbreak of food poisoning and, therefore, is not shown in the figures. We have to prevent the possibility of contaminated meat being sold for human consumption. We do not want contaminated meat to get into shops, cafés, restaurants and food processing factories, and the only way to prevent it is by Regulations of this kind.
After complaining about the delay, I want to ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary a few questions about the Regulations. Paragraphs 4 and 7 (1) provides it as a defence for a person engaged in the meat trade or in processing meat who is found to have contaminated meat on his premises and action is taken against him if he can prove that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained that the meat was unfit for human consumption.
I am very worried about this defence, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North said, if we had 100 per cent. inspection of meat at slaughterhouses there would be no need for a defence of that kind. If any contaminated meat then got out of the slaughterhouses, responsibility would fall on the inspecting authority. I hope the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will tell me whether I am wrong, but it seems an admission on the part of the Government that there will continue to be less than 100 per cent. inspection of meat in spite of all the promises we have had in the last few years that the Government are working towards 100 per cent. inspection. It seems an admission that


meat will get out of the slaughterhouses uninspected and it may be contaminated meat.
We know where contaminated meat has come from in the past. It has not come from the municipal abattoirs where there is 100 per cent. inspection, nor from the Fat Stock Marketing Corporation where the abattoirs, because of their size, have 100 per cent. inspection. It has not come from the abattoirs of big reputable firms or of co-operative societies, but from the small slaughterhouses. I am not blaming the slaughter-men, but, as we discussed during the passage of the Slaughterhouses Bill, small slaughterhouses are situated in scattered rural districts where in present circumstances it is very difficult for local authorities to ensure that there is 100 per cent. inspection.
As, no doubt, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has found, we complained during the passage of the Bill about the way in which the Government were providing for the opening of new small slaughterhouses and allowing others to continue. There seems to be an admission here that the Government expect some meat to come from slaughterhouses uninspected. I should be happier if this defence were not in the Regulations. The onus of responsibility ought to be thrown on to the inspecting authority. We ought now to be in a position to provide 100 per cent. inspection through the inspection services of the local authorities. Then, if any meat which was not fit for human consumption got out, the responsibility would not be on the slaughterhouse operator, the meat trader or the food processing factory, but on the local authority. That is where the responsibility should lie, otherwise we shall never get, what we have been asking for for so long, 100 per cent. inspection of all meat which comes from a slaughterhouse. Other countries can provide complete inspection of meat. It is an indication of the low standards we have that, after all these years of asking for it and all the pressure brought to bear on the Government, we have not yet got 100 per cent. inspection.
There were one or two other matters to which I wanted to draw attention, but, in view of the speech of the hon. Member, to which I felt I had to reply,

I have taken up a little more time than I intended. Therefore, I shall refer to only one other matter. I refer to paragraph 11. I do not know whether it would be in order, but I should have thought that where unfit contaminated meat has been carried in a vehicle of any kind the local authority should have power to make sure that that vehicle was sterilised before it was used again. I do not know whether the power exists in other provisions, but it should be provided for either in these Regulations or somewhere else, otherwise if a vehicle or container has carried contaminated meat and the contaminated meat is dealt with, the vehicle or container might still be used without being sterilised. It may be a small point, but I hope the Parliamentary Secretary can satisfy me that something can be done along those lines.
We complain, in general, about the delay in introducing these Regulations; but it is typical of this smug, complacent Government. I hope that now that we have the Regulations they will do some good, inadequate as they are.

10.50 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Kimball: Neither the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) nor the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), in the points they made about the dangers of food poisoning, admitted that the staining of meat with the obnoxious green dye which we remember from wartime is a sufficiently good safeguard to prevent knacker meat and unclean meat getting into pork pies and other channels for human consumption.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Parlamentary Secretary on at long last having introduced these Regulations, which appear to be a satisfactory compromse between the burden of complete sterilisation and the safeguard of staining the meat with green dye.
This is a particularly appropriate time to discuss the Regulations. Throughout the whole countryside at present one has evidence of the grave danger to animals and human beings of coming into contact with a disease from which they have lost their natural immunity. One has only to look at the disastrous spread of foot-and-mouth disease at present to realise how desperately important it is that animals and human beings should be protected from diseases.
I welcome the Regulations, but with two reservations. My first reservation, which my hon. Friend may clear up later, deals with paragraph 7 (2, b) and the movement of meat which is fit for human consumption. Often at peak slaughtering periods, particularly in September, offal which is perfectly fit for human consumption finds its way into the knacker trade, especally into the trade which cans the new and fancy kind of pet foods which are now so popular. As I and a principal firm in my constituency understand the Regulations at the moment, even though the meat is fit for human consumption, because it is to be used and canned for pet food it has to go in a locked and sealed container. This seems to me unnecessary when the meat is perfectly fit for human consumption.
My second point concerns using this particularly nasty green dye. I understand that we are to use the same green dye in 1960 as we had to use in 1940. As so much research and discussion have taken place in the last twenty years, it ought to have been possible for scientists to have devised some slightly less offensive dye which they could put on meat but which, when the meat was cooked, would show up just as effectively as this green dye. I hope that my hon. Friend will give us an assurance that, if a better and less offensive dye comes on the market, we shall be able to use it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Sir R. Glyn) made a very good point when he said that it is important to keep up the sale of knacker meat. It is not very attractive for people to go to slaughterhouses to pick up a couple of pounds of meat, but now in addition a quantity of green dye is to be put on it, which will come off on shopping baskets, cars and clothes. We want to safeguard the public, but we do not want to make it any more difficult to sell knacker meat.

10.56 p.m.

Mr. Charles A. Howell: The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) referred to the green dye on meat, but I hope he is not trying to persuade us that none of the meat escapes the dye. Meat is not the only thing that was at one time treated with dye. A violet dye was used

on potatoes that were unfit for human consumption, but not all these potatoes received the dye and a lot of them went for human consumption as well as for animal feeding. I am not as naïve as one hon. Member opposite who said that since food rationing ended there was no risk of unfit meat being used for human consumption. That is not quite the case, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr, Darling) said, in this trade there are good and bad elements, and it is only the bad element that we want to trip up.
There is a financial aspect to this subject, and we get it even in London, where some restaurants, and very prominent restaurants, have been fined for using horse meat. I could give the House details of one such establishment, but that would not be fair, as it is now under different management. Only a year or two ago it was prosecuted under a very prominent name for using horse meat under false pretences. That convinces me that such things can happen. Further, whether or not we like sterilisation, or accept—and I do not—that it will cost 6d. per lb. of meat, such treatment is essential in case the meat is missed by the green dye.
Is there anything in these Regulations or in the Public Health Acts to indicate that when meat is disqualified for human consumption the whole beast is so disqualified or only the infected part? Again, in most of the Regulations we have the expression "slaughterhouse or knacker's yard"; is there any significance in the fact that paragraph 8 omits "knacker's yard"? It reads:
Where there are no facilities for sterilisation in a slaughterhouse …
That is an important matter. It is more likely that this plant will be available in a large slaughterhouse than in a knacker's yard. The knacker trade is usually a one-man business. It is true that these are very experienced people, but the businesses are not big concerns. Most of them are either one-man or man-and-son affairs and run in the family.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. W. M. F. Vane): Perhaps I may answer that last point; otherwise it might take up a great deal of time. I do not think the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Howell)


has got the purpose of the Regulations entirely clear. They distinguish between unfit meat from a slaughterhouse and meat from a knacker's yard. Paragraph 8 deals with slaughterhouses only. The hon. Gentleman will notice that different provisions are laid down for those different classes of meat.

Mr. Howell: I accept that. I wanted to be sure, because in that paragraph only the word "slaughterhouse" is used. As my hon. Friend implied, there was an escape clause, to provide a defence.

Mr. Vane: Oh, no.

Mr. Howell: That is what a defence is. Paragraph 4 states:
Provided that it shall be a defence in any proceedings…
That is an escape clause to enable one to escape the Regulations. Paragraph 8 is an escape clause. It says:
Where there are no facilities for sterilisation in a slaughterhouse …
the provisions are not to apply, providing the meat is going to a place where it will be sterilised or destroyed.
Why not enlist the services of the local authorities to encourage the provision of sterilisation? Will the Joint Parliamentary Secretary have that point in mind, so that the whole of the country can have the assurance that adequate sterilisation is available? In addition, will he give further thought to my suggestion that the words "stained and sterilised" should be used and not, as appears in paragraph 5, "stained or sterilised"? That is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) was making.
Provided that I can have this assurance, I shall be satisfied to give my support to these Regulations. Perhaps the Joint Parliamentary Secretary can give an undertaking that, through the A.M.C. or other similar organisations, the health authorities will be encouraged to set up sterilisation plant so that people selling pets' meat are able to advertise their meat as having been sterilised.

11.3 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. W. M. F. Vane): I do not complain that the hon. Member for

Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), who opened the debate, was bantering in his tone. It is to be expected when Regulations have been introduced and have been withdrawn for further consideration and introduced a second time, however good the improvements which have been incorporated meanwhile. But the merits of the Regulations which we are discussing are what are of immediate importance, and it is to those merits that I propose to address myself.
The House is familiar with the background, not only because of the previous debate but also from general interest. All the same, it is important to refer to Section 13 (2, g) of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, which empowered Ministers to make Regulations
… for requiring the staining or sterilisation in accordance with the Regulations of meat which is unfit for human consumption, or which is derived from animals slaughtered in knackers' yards or from carcases brought into knackers' yards, or which, though not unfit for human consumption, is not intended therefor.
It was made clear by the Government at the end of certain wartime controls that some alternative protective measure would be introduced when powers became available. It has always been the Government's view that Regulations against certain dangers to health which could arise from carelessly handled condemned slaughterhouse or knacker meat should be introduced at some stage. This is in no sense a hasty or any sort of rescue motion arising out of any critical conditions. We are discussing Regulations which are public health Regulations, and not pets Regulations. It is not fair, as was stated, to say that our food standards in this country are so low. We are, of course, improving them steadily.
I want to underline the effective and practical, yet far from difficult, conditions which the Regulations prescribe, and at the same time to note how they differ from the Regulations discussed a little time ago. What these Regulations do is to require that all unfit meat in slaughterhouses and unfit imported meat must be sterilised before leaving the slaughterhouse or port of entry; and that all meat from animals slaughtered in, or carcases brought into, knackers' yards must be stained or sterilised before leaving the premises. Exemption from these requirements are provided for meat


supplied to processors, zoos, or menageries, if the meat is transported from the slaughterhouse, port of entry or knacker's yard in locked containers or vehicles appropriately marked. The Regulations do not affect supplies to hospitals, medical or veterinary schools, for instructional or diagnostic purposes, or to manufacturing chemists for the manufacture of pharmaceutical products. Nor do they apply to whole dead animals.
In the case of unfit slaughterhouse and imported meat, my right hon. Friend's predecessor and his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health had no difficulty in deciding that sterilisation was necessary, and it is clear that the House would agree with this. There is no doubt that such meat, which will actually have been inspected and found, by reason of disease or other cause, to be unfit, presents a public health hazard and should not be allowed to be sold raw, particularly to people who may take it into private households where it may directly or indirectly contaminate human food. The danger is, however, reduced to an insignificant level in the case of meat supplied to processors, who will sterilise it before resale, and to large animal establishments, zoos, which are normally apart from domestic premises, and so we have created exemptions for these provided that suitable safeguards are observed in transporting the meat.
Knacker meat is different. While some of it may be technically fit for human consumption, none may be sold for human consumption. The risk of contamination is too big a hazard to leave it unidentifiable, and therefore it has to be stained if not sterilised.
In spite of objections that have been raised to green dye, experience during the war and since shows that deeply stained green is the most practical way that has been discovered for permanently staining such meat.

Mr. Howell: Is it a vegetable dye?

Mr. Vane: I believe that there are several different dyes that are permitted, and no doubt if anyone can invent a more powerful, more permanent, or cheaper dye, that will be added to the list.
As regards possible sterilisation, inquiries we have made revealed no direct evidence of any considerable illness due to careless handling of knacker meat, and none at all of any widespread outbreak of disease directly attributable to it. There was, in our view, nothing like enough of this to justify the considerable interference with the trade and the dissatisfaction and extra cost to a large section of the community that compulsory sterilisation would entail. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health supports this view, and he has carried out recently a survey of several knackers' yards and has found no burden of evidence which would lead him to believe that what we are doing is not achieving a proper and reasonable safeguard.
Taking the representations we have received as a whole, the balance of argument was clearly against the extra operation of sterilisation. To be fair, to consult about 30 organisations, as we did, takes time. I do not pretend that the matter has not taken a considerable time. The consultations we carried out were fairly considerable, and also we gave the Ministry of Health opportunity to carry out the small survey to which I referred.
The public health inspectors support our protecting the public by the staining of knacker meat. The Food Hygiene Council agreed to the revised Regulations but regretted that sterilisation of knacker's meat was omitted. One can understand that, bearing in mind the Council's particular function and responsibility. Nevertheless, all these representations were taken into account, together with the results of our own considerable inquiries and the investigation made by the Ministry of Health, and we were left in no doubt that, on balance, this was the proper course to follow.
We decided that it was reasonable to require all knacker meat, if not sterilised, to be stained right down to the point of retail sale. The stain will serve as an indication that the meat must not be treated as ordinary meat, and I am satisfied that the rest can be left to the good sense of the purchasers.
There has been an assertion that the Regulations have been weakened, but that fails to take account of the fact that we have strengthened the Regulations


in two ways. First, it is no longer permissible for unfit slaughterhouse or imported meat to enter the chain of distribution, except for supplies to the exempted users, until it has been sterilised, and in the earlier Regulation there was the option to leave that to the retail stage. We have now withdrawn that. Secondly, supplies of unsterilised unfit meat and unstained knacker meat destined for the exempted classes have now to be carried in locked containers or locked vehicles appropriately marked. This is an extra valuable supplementary safeguard, and I am advised that local authorities have powers to require a vehicle to be sterilised after it has been shown that it has been carrying unfit meat.
I am not surprised that several hon. Members referred to 100 per cent. meat inspection. There is, of course, a connection. If these Regulations are to be operated in full, we must aim to have a complete meat inspection. I assure the House that we have not been dilatory about it. Some hon. Members will have noted that, during the Recess, another Order was laid which has the effect of creating a new type of meat inspector, and this, we hope, will overcome one of the main difficulties, namely, shortage of staff. It will now be possible for an employee of a local authority who holds the certificate in meat inspection of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health to act as meat inspector. I like to think, therefore, that the criticism that was voiced will very soon have much less strength behind it.
I have answered several questions raised by hon. Members. I expected the green dye in particular to be mentioned. The dye is not put there for its appearance; it is put there for the protection of the public, and we have not yet been able to find anything better. The hon. Member for Perry Barr asked whether, after an inspector has condemned a part of a carcase, the whole or only that part is deemed to be unfit for human consumption. The answer is that it depends upon the nature of the fault he has found, whether it is general disease or, perhaps, some quite small and localised abscess.
We have met the suggestion that the strength of the meat inspectors department is insufficient. We have heard

various figures about cases of food poisoning arising from processed meat, but it must be borne in mind—I hope the right hon. Lady will support me here—that many cases of food poisoning which arise from canned or processed meat can as easily arise from faulty handling in the home so that it is stale in one way or another and that the blame should not necessarily be directed either to the retailer or to the manufacturer. This is something where it is very difficult to specify the exact cause.
With regard to the 100 per cent. inspection of meat, even that would not on occasions prevent meat being sent out unsterilised, because there is a human element in all this which one should bear in mind. We are dealing now not with a machine but with human beings doing an important job, and it is extremely difficult to see that the job done is 100 per cent. accurate as to every part of the carcase. However, local authorities and, I think, the whole trade are very conscious of their responsibilities, and I think we can say—and take satisfaction from the fact—that standards are steadily rising.
We realise that it is our duty to give people reasonable protection against risks which they cannot readily perceive, but I think we must admit that it is impossible to provide complete protection against all and every risk of life. However, in the Order we are providing people with a warning by staining and protection by stricter transport rules and sterilisation where it seems justified, and in consequence I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the Prayer.

Mr. Willey: Could the hon. Gentleman deal with a point which I thought would have been raised on the other side of the House? I mentioned kennels and said that I anticipated that the point would be raised from the Government benches. The hon. Gentleman has referred to the new provision about closed containers being identifiable. Has he considered whether meat might not be supplied to kennels—possibly registered kennels—in such vehicles as was suggested in the earlier debate?

Mr. Vane: By and large, dogs will have to eat green meat, but I honestly do not think that it will be any particular hardship for them, because they


have done it before. I think that much of the criticism against staining from the point of view of the food value for animals is exaggerated.

Mr. Willey: As I said earlier, I think it would be most unwise to pursue the Prayer. We recognise that the Order has advantages, and we are still hopeful that the Government will, in the light of experience, lay a further Order extending these safeguards. With that in mind, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL PLAYERS (PAY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

11.19 p.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: For three hours this evening we have been discussing the affairs of a notably efficient and profitable section of industry which pays, on the whole, exceptionally high wages and salaries. Now for half an hour we turn to professional football, which is the most important section of our national sporting industry but a section that is inefficiently organised, semi-bankrupt and only too often a thoroughly bad employer. There should, I think, be a certain mutual sympathy between Members of Parliament and professional football players. We both suffer from acute insecurity of employment. Both are only too likely to suffer from premature retirement. We both do our work for the most part in public, and our mistakes are subject to the harshest criticism.
The Saturday afternoon before last I went to see Chelsea play Arsenal, and I must admit that on that occasion the two Arsenal inside forwards did not, perhaps, acquit themselves particularly well—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about Chelsea's?"]—but when I turned to the sporting pages of some of the popular Sunday newspapers I was astonished at the bitterness of the criticism. It was comparable in virulence to the sort of criticism which the new Member-elect for Ebbw Vale is apt on occasion to pour upon the leaders of his own party.
There is another similarity to Members of Parliament. We get almost the same pay—with the fringe benefits that a football star will receive from the game. Is it any wonder that the general public is incensed about the inadequate remuneration of its champions—its football champions, unfortunately, rather than its political champions?
Here there is a serious difference. In the House of Commons we can alter our conditions and pay by agreeing among ourselves, but football players are bound to their employers by contractual conditions which would have been rejected with a snort of contempt by any intelligent young apprentice in the Middle


Ages. The professional footballer labours under a double handicap. If he wants to play League football—and if he is a good player he will naturally want to play League football—he is bound to his employer until that employer chooses to sell him or to release him. At the same time, he cannot negotiate effectively with his employer, for the maximum salary that a football player can receive is set by the Football League collectively and is binding on all the clubs and, through the clubs, on the players.
The wage differential between medium football talent and great football talent is ludicrously small. In fact, under the present system a lot of inefficient monopoly capitalists are forcing on their unwilling employees a doctrine of pure Socialism. Not only is the present system thoroughly unfair in theory, but it is grossly unfair in practice.
There has been much talk recently about the transfer of Mr. Eastham, a young inside forward for whose talent Arsenal paid £47,500 to Newcastle United. Mr. Eastham is 24 years old and, as an inside forward, his first-class career will certainly be finished within ten years. It may end a very great deal sooner than that, but even assuming that Mr. Eastham's transfer fee can be written off over ten years, the figures prove conclusively that Arsenal puts Mr. Eastham's value at between three and four times the maximum salary that Arsenal can pay Mr. Eastham during his playing career—and I count in all fringe benefits such as cheap housing, benefit money and television money which must, in all fairness, be counted in with the maximum wage.
It is absolutely wrong that such a monopoly should prevent a player from earning more than a pitiful fraction of the publically admitted value of his talents. It is still more disgraceful that he should be prevented from bargaining on his own behalf. It is this combination of the contract with the maximum wage which turns our soccer players into soccer serfs.
This state of affairs could be accepted, perhaps, if it could be proved beyond doubt that some over-riding social good came from the continuation of the present system; but does this in fact happen? In its evidence to a conciliation committee set up by the Ministry

of Labour in 1951, the Football League argued that the essential objective of football ought to be the continuance of the Football League unchanged in essentials, and the Football League has stuck firmly to that view, which is hardly surprising when one considers the sort of majority that has to be obtained within the Football League itself if there is to be any important change in the contract system.
In its evidence in 1951 the League was able to testify:
That they did not believe there was any general dissatisfaction among players.
That is certainly not true today. The meetings of the Professional Footballers' Association in the last week have given ample evidence of that.
Then again, Mr. Albert Henshall, chairman of Stoke City Football Club, and a powerful figure in the League, has recently been quoted as saying:
Three-quarters of the Football League clubs are in the red
That does not seem to me to be an overwhelming argument in favour of sticking to the status quo through hell or high water.
Are the football managers satisfied with the present system? It seems to me that many of them change their clubs with the rapidity that some Hollywood stars change their husbands or wives, and I cannot believe that the majority of football managers are satisfied with the status quo.
Are the public satisfied? From the evidence of falling gates and the volume of interest that is aroused whenever a new system of League organisation is put forward, I suggest that the public are far from satisfied.
Is the maintenance of the status quo desirable for the state of British football? Many well qualified critics—I am referring to the football correspondents of many leading national newspapers—believe that the present League system should be drastically modified.
I do not believe that a satisfactory case can be made out today for the continuance on the ground of community interest of a system which is manifestly unfair and unjust to those with the greatest talent.
There is obviously no time this evening to go through the twenty-two points of


difference that have, I think, been isolated between the players' union and the League. The key points are the contract, combined with the maximum wage. I believe that the continuation of long term contracts is essential to the health of the game, but the contract should be revised to cover such points as protection for injured players. At the moment, injured players are, on occasions, treated in a shameful fashion, such as would not be tolerated in any mine or reputable factory in this country.
It is the maximum wage and the signing on provisions make the contract an instrument of tyranny rather than an instrument of protection, which is what it ought to be. This should be abolished or drastically modified as a step towards total abolition. Tomorrow, representatives of the players and the League meet at the Ministry of Labour. We wish them well and hope for agreement. But if there is no end to the dispute the Government have a right and duty to intervene, as they have in the past. Wages boards have been set up in industries where free collective bargaining is difficult. I believe that a wages board would be bound to modify drastically the present system, and if that proves to be the easiest way I think we should let it happen.
I do not believe, however, that the players' union can merely sit back and hope that action will be taken by others. It has conducted its affairs with patience and moderation. It has listened to advice given by Members on both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) has played a prominent part, as have the hon. Members for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu), my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), whom we should congratulate on completing 25 years' service in this House. He has been a Member of the House almost as long as Stanley Matthews has been playing League football.
The players' union has to remember the convenience of the public, who pay for everything. It has to remember the position of the clubs, because players can receive good money only from clubs that are well off and well established.

The union has to remember the position of its own members who play for teams like Grimsby and Southend United, where economic realities are a great deal closer than they are at White Hart Lane or Stamford Bridge. My own local football club, Crystal Palace, lost £3,398 last year. Last weekend they played another League team which, we were informed, did not even have the money for the rail fares for its own players.
I would repeat in public the advice I have already given to some of the union leaders. If it comes to a showdown—and we all hope that it will not—why not let the stars carry the heat and the burden of the day? They stand to gain at least as much as any of the other players. If there is to be direct action, let every player who has played in a full international, a "B" international, an under-23 international or in an international League football team, decide to withhold his services on every other Saturday, and let the rank and file of players in their clubs go on playing while they contribute to the support of the golden strikers. I hope, however, that no sort of direct action is necessary.

Mr. F. A. Burden: If my hon. Friend's suggestion were carried out—and there is obviously a great deal in it—it would be necessary to ensure that there was no victimisation of the star players who had acted in the interests of the others and had exposed themselves to action by the clubs for doing so.

Mr. Goodhart: That is most certainly a point to be borne in mind, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning it. I hope that no direct action of any sort is necessary and that this very brief debate is another step on the road to ending a system in sport which is a disgrace to this country.

11.35 p.m.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) for some of the kind things he has said about me and my hon. Friends. I must resist the temptation to enter into an argument with him about what he called "pure Socialism" and what I would call pure Toryism, the law of the jungle and the survival of the fittest. This is not the occasion on which to engage on that subject.
Perhaps I should explain that I have some interest in this subject, although in an honorary capacity. I happen to be a trustee of the Professional Footballers' Association. In that capacity I know of some of the troubles and difficulties and the aims they seek to establish. They have asked me to say on their behalf how much they appreciate the efforts of the Ministry of Labour so far—especially of the Ministry's senior conciliation officer who has been principally concerned in their troubles—and what they have tried to do to bring some conciliation to bear between the Football League and the players' union.
No one who enjoys his Saturday afternoon at a football match—or misery according to which team one supports—would say other than that this is probably our greatest national sport. Millions of people in this country spend Saturday afternoon watching a football match and believe it is a sport. I think it fair to say that in general terms we can accept that the majority of professional players play this game essentially as a sport. But the average sportsman associates sport with fair play. That is the interpretation which the union is placing upon this matter. I remind the House that this is not a dispute which has suddenly arisen. It goes back to 1947, when there was a national industrial tribunal set up which made a number of recommendations which were ratified in 1952, and many of those recommendations have not been put into operation. It is a long-standing grievance which is only now coming to a head.
What the professional footballer asks is that he should be treated in precisely the same way as any other employee in industry or commerce—nothing more nor less than that he should have the same rights accorded to other people in industry or commerce. The professional footballers recognise that they must have a contract of service by the very nature of their profession, but they think there could be some far more generous provisions, that the contract should not have all the disadvantages weighted against the player as distinct from the club which employs him.
We could have had a long debate on this matter, and we were hoping that would be possible, but it may be wise for

me to say no more than to express the hope that as further conciliation efforts are to take place tomorrow they may be successful and embody, not just common sense, but a little uncommon sense on this occasion. We express the hope to the Parliamentary Secretary that the efforts of his conciliation officers tomorrow with the Association will bear more fruit than previous efforts.

11.39 p.m.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) deserves our thanks for raising this subject. He may have been right in putting a little political tone into the discussion, because this is a question of injustice, injustice that anyone, when he thinks about it, would not stand for a second. I give the Parliamentary Secretary one example. Who would stand for a contract which ties him after tat contract has expired? That is what happens to a professional footballer. He signs a contract for one year. It finishes at the end of the year, for his club is freed from it, but he is tied to it. No one in any other industry would dare to justify that contract. I hope that what has been said so well by the hon. Member for Beckenham and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) will influence the Parliamentary Secretary to do all that he can to get that particular instance of injustice removed.

11.40 p.m.

Mr. F. A. Burden: I want very quickly to deal with one very important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), and that is the question of injured players. It frequently happens that a player injured during a season is no longer required because of his injury by the club to whom he has been under contract. He is frequently transferred at a small fee or given a free transfer. The whole of his playing career is ruined and his income ceases very quickly.
In the new contract which I hope will emerge from the negotiations now going on, I believe that some form of insurance can be effected whereby players who are in the unfortunate position of having their careers cut short through injury shall be entitled, by compulsory insurance in their contracts, to some form of insurance benefits at the close of their


playing career and their capacity for earning money. This would enable them to have some money in their hands with which to start new lives.

11.42 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I shall not take one second longer than the Parliamentary Secretary can allow. If he waves his hand at me I shall know when to resume my seat. The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) has rendered a great service to the country by raising this question this evening. The tempo of life in Britain now is such that men and women engaged in industry need some relaxation. The police inform me that large sporting assemblies, particularly association football, make a great contribution to keeping people's minds on the need for relaxation and keeping fit. It enables them to keep going in industry. Professional footballers render a great service to the community. Many of us know the important part sport plays in keeping up the volume of exports. I am therefore glad to be associated with the hon. Member for Beckenham in this matter.

11.43 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Peter Thomas): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) for giving way, as he promised. I see that I have five minutes in which to wind up the debate, which is quite sufficient, because there is not a great deal I want to say.
I want, first, to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart). It has been a most interesting Adjournment debate. Five hon. Members have spoken already, which is very unusual in an Adjournment debate.
I thank the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) for the very kind words of appreciation he used about our officers in the Ministry of Labour. He described association football as the greatest national sport in Britain. I do not know whether that is exactly true, but certainly in terms of numbers it is the most popular sport in Britain. There is clearly considerable public interest in all its activities, both on and off the field of play.
To many, it is not just a sport. It is also an industry. Men are professionally engaged in it, and the terms and conditions under which they are employed are naturally matters of extreme interest and concern to a large number of outside people. I can only hope that the majority of these people have not been as bewildered as I have been by the intricacies of the football world and the relationship between the players and the clubs.
This is a matter of great public interest, and we can all congratulate my hon. Friend on having raised it. However, I must in fairness point out—because in the Ministry we try to be as objective as possible—that in this debate we have heard only one side. We in the Ministry appreciate the difficulties that obtain, inasmuch as we have had these difficulties brought before us for many years.
I had intended, had there been time, to go through the history of our acts of conciliation in this sport and industry. There is not much time, but I should like to say one thing—and I think that it is important to stress it—that in the industry of professional football there are no effective arrangements for airing grievances and discussing outstanding problems. Because of that, neither the players nor the clubs had an opportunity of an exhaustive examination, face to face, of the points of difference between them until they met under the auspices of the Ministry. As my hon. Friend has said, we then found and identified 22 points of difference.
As we know, there is to be a meeting at the Ministry tomorrow between, not both sides of the industry, but the three sides—the Football Association, the Football League and what is sometimes called the players' union—the Professional Footballers' Association. In view of that meeting, I feel that hon. Members will not expect me now to deal in any way with the merits of any individual matter that has been raised this evening. I hope that the parties tomorrow will derive some benefit from the views expressed in this debate, and we all hope that it will be possible for these further discussions to continue, free from the disruption that a strike would obviously cause.
I would end by saying that while these disputes exist my right hon. Friend


is perfectly prepared and anxious to do all he can to assist, and our officers are at the disposal of the parties. When the present dispute is over—and I trust that it will soon be resolved—I hope that the parties will see the advantages of establishing within the industry appropriate and permanent machinery for negotiation and consultation. If it is thought desirable, there could be an independent chairman. I am sure that such action would be beneficial to professional football, and that hon. Members will agree that it would be in keeping with our traditional arrangements for free negotiation between employers and workers. I believe that this would be infinitely preferable to any form of statutory control of wages and other terms of employment by way of wages boards, as suggested by my hon. Friend.
This can only be done with the consent of the parties concerned; but I think that it is a weakness in the present system that there is no effective negotiating machinery. If it is the wish of the parties, my Department will give all possible assistance in the establishment of such machinery. Meanwhile, negotiations will be resumed tomorrow. I am sure that they will be resumed by all parties in a constructive and amicable spirit, and with a real determination to settle many of these long drawn-out differences.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at eleven minutes to Twelve o'clock.